Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Car Bomb at Pentagon on 9/11

2456

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,738 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    But we don't have anything to confirm that there was a mural depicting anything untoward. (Never mind how that such a thing does not make a lick of sense in a conspiracy narrative.)
    Also again notice how you say "exploding into the twin towers". The audio you're basing this all an says no such thing. It says "a mural with a plane flying into New York and exploding". Yet again, you've changed this in only a second hand report.
    Really you are just demonstrating my point perfectly.

    The official MTI report states

    A panel truck with a painting of a plane flying into the World Trade Center was stopped near the temporary command post


    You wanna go down that route again ???


  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    weisses wrote: »
    The official MTI report states

    A panel truck with a painting of a plane flying into the World Trade Center was stopped near the temporary command post


    You wanna go down that route again ???
    Not particularly as you have no interest in discussing it. And experience tells me you will be unable to attempt as such like an adult.

    The MTI report says one thing. The cops on the ground say something else. They both can't be right.
    The simplest way to explain this is that it is a miscommunication about a misinterpreted mural or advertisement.
    There is no explanation that indicates a conspiracy.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 291 ✭✭Sixtus


    weisses wrote: »
    Proof !! Show me photos the building was fully engulfed in flames

    WTC7_Smoke.jpg
    They must feel awfully stupid now considering it was only a couple of floors that were on fire (at least on one side)

    So lets be clear you're accusing all these people of either being lying or just wrong.
    1. We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors. –FDNY Lieutenant Robert Larocco

    2. ...Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down. –FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn

    3. I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank [Cruthers]. He said, we’re moving the command post over this way, that building’s coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire and smoke that really wasn’t bothering us when we were searching because it was being pushed southeast and we were a little bit west of that. I remember standing just where West and Vesey start to rise toward the entrance we were using in the World Financial Center. There were a couple of guys standing with me and a couple of guys right at the intersection, and we were trying to back them up – and here goes 7. It started to come down and now people were starting to run. –FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/visconti.html

    4. All morning I was watching 7 World Trade burn, which we couldn't do anything about because it was so much chaos looking for missing members. –Firefighter Marcel Klaes

    5. When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories.
    –FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers (Smith, Dennis, 2002. Report From Ground Zero: The Heroic Story of the Rescuers at the World Trade Center. New York: Penguin Putnam. p. 160)

    6. The concern there again, it was later in the afternoon, 2, 2:30, like I said. The fear then was Seven. Seven was free burning. Search had been made of 7 already from what they said so they had us back up to that point where we were waiting for 7 to come down to operate from the north back down. –Captain Robert Sohmer http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110472.PDF

    7. Then we had to move because the Duane Reade, they said, wasn't safe because building 7 was really roaring. –FDNY Chief Medical Officer Kerry Kelly.

    8. At this point Seven World Trade was going heavy, and they weren't letting anybody get too close. Everybody was expecting that to come down. –Firefighter Vincent Massa

    9. Chief Cruthers told me that they had formed another command post up on Chambers Street. At this point there were a couple of floors burning on Seven World Trade Center. Chief McNally wanted to try and put that fire out, and he was trying to coordinate with the command post up on Chambers Street. This is after searching for a while. He had me running back and forth trying to get companies to go into Seven World Trade Center. His radio didn't seem to be working right either because he had me relaying information back and forth and Chief Cruthers had me --

    Q. So everything was face-to-face? Nothing was by radio?

    A. Yeah, and it was really in disarray. It really was in complete disarray. We never really got an operation going at Seven World Trade Center. –FDNY Captain Michael Donovan

    10. Building #7 was still actively burning and at that time we were advised by a NYFD Chief that building #7 was burning out of control and imminent collapse was probable. –PAPD P.O. Edward McQuade http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports02.pdf page 48.
    11. At Vesey St. and West St., I could see that 7 WTC was ablaze and damaged, along with other buildings. –M. DeFilippis, PAPD P.O. http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports03.pdf page 49

    [Note: the fires in 7 were probably not mainly due to damage from the south tower, but from the north.]
    12. So yeah then we just stayed on Vesey until building Seven came down. There was nothing we could do. The flames were coming out of every window of that building from the explosion of the south tower. So then building Seven came down. When that started coming down you heard that pancaking sound again everyone jumped up and starts.

    Q: Why was building Seven on fire? Was that flaming debris from tower two, from tower two that fell onto that building and lit it on fire?

    A: Correct. Because it really got going, that building Seven, saw it late in the day and like the first Seven floors were on fire. It looked like heavy fire on seven floors. It was fully engulfed, that whole building. There were pieces of tower two [sic: he probably means tower one] in building Seven and the corners of the building missing and what-not. But just looking up at it from ground level however many stories -- it was 40 some odd -- you could see the flames going straight through from one side of the building to the other, that’s an entire block. –Firefighter Tiernach Cassidy

    13. "We were down about a block from the base of the World Trade Center towers about an hour ago. And there was a great deal of concern at that time, the firemen said building number 7 was going to collapse, building number five was in danger of collapsing. And there's so little they can do to try to fight the fires in these buildings, because the fires are so massive. And so much of the buildings continues to fall into the street. When you're down there, Dan, you hear smaller secondary explosions going off every 15 or 20 minutes, and so it's an extremely dangerous place to be."
    –CBS-TV News Reporter Vince DeMentri http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.secondary.explosions.wmv

    14. Well, they said that's (7) fully involved at this time. This was a fully involved building. I said, all right, they're not coming for us for a while. Now you're trapped in this rubble, and you're trying to get a grasp of an idea of what's going on there. I heard on the handy talky that we are now fighting a 40-story building fully involved.

    Now you're trapped in the rubble and the guys who are there are fighting the worst high-rise fire in the history of New York or history of the world, probably, I don't know, 40, story building fully involved, I guess that was probably the worst.

    I was, needless to say, scared to death that something else was going to fall on us, that this building was going to come down and we were all going to die, after surviving the worst of it. [Note: I deleted the link this account, and searching the net for the text doesn’t turn up anything. This sounds like an account from north tower stairwell B survivor. Anyone who knows for sure, let me know.]

    15. And 7 World Trade was burning up at the time. We could see it. ... the fire at 7 World Trade was working its way from the front of the building northbound to the back of the building. There was no way there could be water put on it, because there was no water in the area. –Firefighter Eugene Kelty Jr.

    16. The time was approximately 11a.m. Both of the WTC towers were collapsed and the streets were covered with debris. Building #7 was still standing but burning. ...We spoke to with a FDNY Chief who has his men holed up in the US Post Office building. He informed us that the fires in building 7 were uncontrollable and that its collapse was imminent. There were no fires inside the loading dock (of 7) at this time but we could hear explosions deep inside. –PAPD P.O. William Connors http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports04.pdf page 69

    17. "There's number Seven World Trade. That's the OEM bunker." We had a snicker about that. We looked over, and it's engulfed in flames and starting to collapse.

    We're kind of caught in traffic and people and things, and everything's going on. We hear over the fire portable, "Everybody evacuate the site. It's going to collapse." Mark Steffens starts yelling, "Get out of here! Get out of here! Get out of here! We've got to go! We've got to go! It's going to collapse." I turned around, and I piped up real loud and said, "Stay in the frigging car. Roll the windows up. It's pancake collapsing. We'll be fine. The debris will quit and the cloud will come through. Just stay in the car." We pulled the car over, turned around and just watched it pancake. We had a dust cloud but nothing like it was before. –Paramedic Louis Cook
    (Building 7 fire makes rescuer of NT stairwell victim’s route impassable, just before collapse):
    I remember it was bad and I'm going to get to a point where we came back that way on the way up. We couldn't even go that way, that's how bad the fire was, but by the time I was coming back it was rolling, more than a couple of floors, just fully involved, rolling.

    ...So now it's us 4 and we are walking towards it and I remember it would have at one point been an easier path to go towards our right, but being building 7 -- that must have been building 7 I'm guessing with that fire, we decided to stay away from that because things were just crackling, falling and whatnot. So as I’m going back, that fire that was on my right is now on my left. I’m backtracking and that fire is really going and on the hike towards there, we put down our masks, which at this point started to realize maybe it would have been good thing if we had this mask on the way back, but then again between the fire and about halfway when I was on the way back, I got a radio call from the guys that we left and it was Johnny Colon the chauffeur of 43, who was effecting a different rescue. He was carrying somebody out.
    He had called me and said “Hey Jerry don’t try and get back out the way you went in which was big heads up move because he said that building was rolling on top of the building that we were passing. That building was on fire and likely to collapse more too.
    Between Picciotto asking me are you sure we can get out this way because it really didn’t look good with that fire and my guy telling me that you better not because of the area we crawled in was unattainable now too. ...we started going back the other way.
    Q: Would that be towards West Street?
    A: That would have been back towards what I know is the Winter Garden....[west]
    –Firefighter Gerard Suden

    18. I remember Chief Hayden saying to me, "We have a six-story building over there, a seven-story building, fully involved." At that time he said, "7 has got fire on several floors." He said, "We've got a ten-story over there, another ten-story over there, a six-story over there, a 13-story over there." He just looked at me and said, "**** 'em all. Let 'em burn." He said, "Just tell the guys to keep looking for guys. Just keep looking for the brothers. We've got people trapped. We've got to get them out." –Lieutenant William Ryan

    19. I walked around the building to get back to the command post and that's when they were waiting for 7 World Trade Center to come down. ...They had three floors of fire on three separate floors, probably 10, 11 and 15 it looked like, just burning merrily. It was pretty amazing, you know, it's the afternoon in lower Manhattan, a major high-rise is burning, and they said 'we know.' –FDNY Chief Thomas McCarthy

    20. We were champing at the bit," says WCBS-TV reporter Vince DeMentri of his decision to sneak behind police barricades and report from 7 World Trade Center a half-hour before it collapsed. "I knew the story was in there." But after he and his cameraman slipped past officers, they lost all sense of direction. "From outside this zone, you could figure out where everything was," he says. "But inside, it was all destruction and blown-out buildings, and we had no clue. I walked into one building, but I had no idea where I was. The windows were all blown out. Computers, desks, furniture, and people's possessions were strewn all over." He found a picture of a little girl lying in the rubble. Then he realized that No. 7, aflame, was about fifteen to twenty feet ahead of him. "I looked up Barclay Street," he says. "There was nobody out. No bodies, no injured. Nobody. There were mounds of burning debris. It was like opening a broiler." http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/sept11/features/5183/index.html

    21. They are worried that number 7 is burning and they are talking about not ceasing operations.
    –Deputy Commissioner Frank Gribbon

    22. There were hundreds of firefighters waiting to -- they were waiting for 7 World Trade Center to come down as it was on fire. It was too dangerous to go in and fight the fire. –Assistant Commissioner James Drury

    23. We assisted some FDNY personnel who were beginning to attempt to fight the fire at 7 WTC. We assisted in dragging hose they needed to bring water into the building. –Kenneth Kohlmann PAPD P.O. http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports04.pdf page 26

    24. My first thoughts when I came down a little further into the site, south of Chambers Street, was, "Where am I?" I didn't recognize it. Obviously, the towers were gone. The only thing that remained standing was a section of the Vista Hotel. Building 7 was on fire. That was ready to come down. –Charlie Vitchers, Ground Zero Superintendent http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/profiles/profiles_vitchers_t.html

    25. The whole south side of Seven World Trade had been hit by the collapse of the second Tower, and there was fire on every floor." – Fire Captain Brenda Berkman (Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba, Women at Ground Zero, 2002, p. 213)
    26. At that point, Seven World Trade had 12 stories of fire in it. They were afraid it was going to collapse on us, so they pulled everybody out. We couldn't do anything. – Firefighter Maureen McArdle-Schulman (Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba, Women at Ground Zero, 2002, p. 17)
    27. The 7 World Trade Center was roaring. All we could think is we were an Engine Company, we have got to get them some water. We need some water you know. With that, we positioned the rig, I don't know, 3 quarters of a block away maybe. A fire boat was going to relay water to us. I don't know if I have things in the right order, whatever, if we were getting water out of a hydrant first. Jesus Christ --
    Q. Captain said you were getting water. You were draining a vacuum?
    A. It was draining away from us. Right. We had to be augmented. I think that's when the fire boat came. I think the fire boats supplied us. Of course you don't see that. You just see the (inaudible) way and you know, we are hooking up and we wound up supplying the Tower Ladder there. I just remember feeling like helpless, like everybody there was doomed and there is -- I just felt like there was absolutely nothing we could do. I want to just go back a little bit.–Firefighter Kevin Howe

    28. "When I got out and onto a clear pile, I see that 7 World Trade Center and the customs house have serious fire. Almost every window has fire. It is an amazing site. –Captain Jay Jonas, Ladder 6. (Dennis Smith. Report From Ground Zero. New York: Viking Penguin, 2002. P. 103)

    29. Firefighter TJ Mundy: "The other building, #7, was fully involved, and he was worried about the next collapse."
    (Dennis Smith. Report From Ground Zero. New York: Viking Penguin, 2002.)
    30. 7 World Trade was burning from the ground to the ceiling fully involved. It was unbelievable. –Firefighter Steve Modica http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/modica.html
    31. So I attempted to get in through the Barkley Street ramp which is on Barkley (sic) and West Broadway, but I was being held back by the fire department, because 7 World Trade, which is above the ramp, was now fully engulfed.
    –PAPD K-9 Sergeant David Lim http://www.911report.com/media/davidlim.pdf

    32. We could hear fires crackling. We didn’t know it at the time, but No. 7 World Trade Center and No. 5 World Trade Center were immediately adjacent to us and they were roaring, they were on fire. Those were the sounds that we were hearing. ...At the same time, No. 5 World Trade Center, No. 6 World Trade Center and No. 7 World Trade Center were roaring. They were on fire. And they were right next to us. So we have all that smoke that we’re dealing with.
    –FDNY Capt. Jay Jonas http://archive.recordonline.com/adayinseptember/jonas.htm
    1. The major concern at that time was number Seven, building number Seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell, it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing. –FDNY Chief Frank Fellini

    2. At that time, other firefighters started showing up, Deputy Battalion Chief Paul Ferran of the 41 Battalion, and James Savastano of the First Division assigned to the Second Battalion showed up and we attempted to search and extinguish, at the time which was small pockets of fire in 7 World Trade Center. We were unaware of the damage in the front of 7, because we were entering from the northeast entrance. We weren't aware of the magnitude of the damage in the front of the building. – FDNY Captain Anthony Varriale http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110313.PDF

    3. [Shortly after the tower collapses] I don’t know how long this was going on, but I remember standing there looking over at building 7 and realizing that a big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side. I looked up at the building and I saw smoke in it, but I really didn't see any fire at that time. Deputy ––Chief Nick Visconti http://tinyurl.com/paqux

    4. A few minutes after that a police officer came up to me and told me that the façade in front of Seven World Trade Center was gone and they thought there was an imminent collapse of Seven World Trade Center. –FDNY Lieutenant William Melarango http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110045.PDF

    5. I think they said they had seven to ten floors that were freestanding and they weren't going to send anyone in. –FDNY Chief Thomas McCarthy http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110055.PDF

    6. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good. But they had a hose line operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too.

    Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.

    So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandeis came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.
    Firehouse Magazine: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?
    Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.
    Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?
    Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered through there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. – Capt. Chris Boyle http://tinyurl.com/e7bzp

    7. After the initial blast, Housing Authority worker Barry Jennings, 46, reported to a command center on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center. He was with Michael Hess, the city's corporation counsel, when they felt and heard another explosion [the collapse of the north tower]. First calling for help, they scrambled downstairs to the lobby, or what was left of it. "I looked around, the lobby was gone. It looked like hell," Jennings said. http://www.record-eagle.com/2001/sep/11scene.htm

    8. Anyway, I was looking at WTC7 and I noticed that it wasn’t looking like it was straight. It was really weird. The closest corner to me (the SE corner) was kind of out of whack with the SW corner. It was impossible to tell whether that corner (the SW) was leaning over more or even if it was leaning the other way. With all of the smoke and the debris pile, I couldn’t exactly tell what was going on, but I sure could see the building was leaning over in a way it certainly should not be. I asked another guy looking with me and he said “That building is going to come down, we better get out of here.” So we did. –M.J., Employed at 45 Broadway, in a letter to me.

    9. So we left 7 World Trade Center, back down to the street, where I ran into Chief Coloe from the 1st Division, Captain Varriale, Engine 24, and Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did. – FDNY Lieutenant Rudolph Weindler http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110462.PDF

    10. Just moments before the south tower collapsed and, you know, when it happened we didn't know it was the south tower. We thought it was the north tower. There was a reporter of some sort, female with blond hair and her cameraman, an oriental fellow. They were setting up outside 7 World Trade Center, just east of the pedestrian bridge. I told them it would probably be better off to be set up under the bridge. At least it was protected. I was just about to enter a dialogue with her when I heard a sound I never heard before. I looked up and saw this huge cloud. I told him run. I grabbed the female, I threw her through the revolving doors of number 7.

    We were proceeding inside. She fell to the ground. I helped her out, I pushed her towards the direction of where we were all in the south corner and there was a little doorway behind that desk which led into the loading bays. Everybody started to run through that. Never made it to that door. The next thing that I remember was that I was covered in some glass and some debris. Everything came crashing through the front of number 7. It was totally pitch black.

    Q. Were you injured?

    A. Yes, I saw some stuff had fallen on me. I didn't believe that I was injured at that time. I discovered later on I was injured. I had some shards of glass impaled in my head, but once I was able to get all this debris and rubble off of me and cover my face with my jacket so that I could breathe, it was very thick dust, you couldn't see. We heard some sounds. We reached out and felt our way around. I managed to find some other people in this lower lobby. We crawled over towards the direction where we thought the door was and as we approached it the door cracked open a little, so we had the lights from the loading bay. We made our way over there. The loading bay doors were 3-fourths of the way shut when this happened, so they took a lot of dust in there, but everyone in those bays was safe and secure. We had face to face contact with Chief Maggio and Captain Nahmod. They told me – I said do whatever you need to do, get these people out of here. Go, go towards the water. –EMS Division Chief Jon Peruggia
    http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110160.PDF

    11. You could see the damage at 7 World Trade Center, the damage into the AT&T building.
    –FDNY Firefighter Vincent Palmieri http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110258.PDF

    12. At this point, 7, which is right there on Vesey, the whole corner of the building was missing. I was thinking to myself we are in a bad place, because it was the corner facing us. –Fred Marsilla, FDNY
    http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110399.PDF

    13. The way we got into the loading dock [of WTC 7] was not the way we were getting out. It was obstructed.

    Q. The door was blocked?

    A. Yeah, and we found our way -- we walked across the loading dock area, and we found there was another door. We went in that door, and from there we were directed to -- I really guess it was like a basement area of the building, but we were directed to an opposite door. –Dr. Michael Guttenberg , NYC Office of Medical Affairs http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110005.PDF

    14. We eventually ended up meeting after the second explosion, three of us met up here, but I didn't see a lot of the people that were with me until two, three days later. I got word that they were okay. For instance, Dr. Guttenberg and Dr. Asaeda, who were at 7 World Trade Center, they got trapped in there and had to like climb in and out and get out because that building also became very damaged supposedly and they were there. We thought they were dead. I guess he was in an area where Commissioner Tierney might have been, I believe. I think she was in 7 also. –Paramedic Manuel Delgado http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110004.PDF

    (After collapse of south tower)
    15. The decision was either to go left or right and we ended up going right, between the two buildings, in the alleyway on the north, which turned out to be the right direction because apparently there was a lot of debris and part of 7 down already. Also, I did notice as I was making my exit the sound of the firefighters' alarms indicating that they were down. I did remember that as well but just could not see anything. –Dr. Glenn Asaeda http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_national/sept11_fdny_transcripts/9110062.PDF

    16. I saw the firefighter. There were people screaming out of one of these two buildings over here saying they couldn't get out, and my partner took one straggler fireman, the one that we had with us, and was trying to break the door because the door obviously had shifted or something. They couldn't get the door open.

    Q: That was 7 World Trade Center?

    A: I believe it was 7. Maybe it was 5. It was at the back end of it because I do remember the telephone company [which is next to building 7]. So I think it was the back end of 7, I think right over here at that point, and they couldn't get out. Then I had ran down the block and I flagged a ladder company and they brought the ladder, which they had like a vestibule that you couldn't like really reach the people because the ladder wouldn't reach. So they went and got other resources, they went inside the building, and I told my partner that it wasn't safe and that we need to go because everything around us was like falling apart. –EMT Nicole Ferrell http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110304.PDF

    17. The whole south side of Seven World Trade had been hit by the collapse of the second Tower. – Fire Captain Brenda Berkman (Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba, Women at Ground Zero, 2002, p. 213)

    18. At that point, they said that Seven World Trade had no face and it was ready to collapse. – EMT Mercedes Rivera: (Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba, Women at Ground Zero, 2002, p. 29)

    19. You see the white smoke, you see the thing leaning like this? It's definitely going. There's no way to stop it. 'Cause you have to go up in there to put it out, and it's already, the structural integrity is not there. –Unidentified firefighter in this video.

    20. As far as I was concerned, we were still trapped. I was hopeful. things were looking a whole lot better now than they were just a few minutes earlier, but we were a long way from safe and sound. Five World Trade Center was fully involved, Six World Trade Center was roaring pretty good, and behind them Seven World Trade Center was teetering on collapse.
    The buildings just behind him and to his left were looking like they too might collapse at any time, and there were whole chunks of concrete falling to both sides. Flames dancing everywhere. The small-arms detonations were kicking up a notch or two, and it sounded like this poor guy was being fired at, by snipers or unseen terrorists, at close range. (Last Man Down by Richard Picciotto, FDNY Battalion Commander Penguin Books, 2002. page 191)


    https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/accountsofwtc7damage


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,738 ✭✭✭weisses


    Where are the photos that shows the building fully engulfed in flames ??


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 291 ✭✭Sixtus


    weisses wrote: »
    Where are the photos that shows the building fully engulfed in flames ??

    The smoke coming from every floor. Seeing as smoke is lighter than air, it means fires creating the smoke must be on every floor there is smoke.

    Weisss, what do you think of the EXTENSIVE eye witness testimony from named members of the FDNY (which makes them alot more credible than BB's imaginary NYPD officer), who state the building was fully involved in fire. Are they lying or are they wrong, in your opinion?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,738 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Not particularly as you have no interest in discussing it. And experience tells me you will be unable to attempt as such like an adult.

    The MTI report says one thing. The cops on the ground say something else. They both can't be right.
    The simplest way to explain this is that it is a miscommunication about a misinterpreted mural or advertisement.
    There is no explanation that indicates a conspiracy.


    I discussed it with you and since you agreed with the report and the description of the mural as stated is from the report i am glad we finally agree


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,738 ✭✭✭weisses


    Sixtus wrote: »
    The smoke coming from every floor. Seeing as smoke is lighter than air, it means fires creating the smoke must be on every floor there is smoke.

    Weisss, what do you think of the EXTENSIVE eye witness testimony from named members of the FDNY (which makes them alot more credible than BB's imaginary NYPD officer), who state the building was fully involved in fire. Are they lying or are they wrong, in your opinion?


    I'm still waiting for the photographic evidence which you claimed there is of the building fully engulfed in flames

    They are wrong as i showed you in video's from different angles of the collapse ..building 7 was never fully engulfed in flames ... I think the biggest skeptic here would agree with me


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,593 ✭✭✭Hoop66


    weisses wrote: »
    I'm still waiting for the photographic evidence which you claimed there is of the building fully engulfed in flames

    They are wrong as i showed you in video's from different angles of the collapse ..building 7 was never fully engulfed in flames ... I think the biggest skeptic here would agree with me

    Is it not obvious from a photograph that shows all the floors of the building wreathed in smoke, that all those floors have fires on them?

    You can perhaps argue that not every single floor is on fire, but to deny that the majority are suggests deliberate obtuseness and a determination to ignore evidence that contradicts your opinion.


  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    weisses wrote: »
    I discussed it with you and since you agreed with the report and the description of the mural as stated is from the report i am glad we finally agree
    lol. That's not what I agreed at all. You must have a terrible memory.
    Either that or a very selective memory.

    I remembered you being unable to provide any coherent explanation for any of the facts which indicated a conspiracy.
    And I remember you being unable to explain how my explanation was impossible or unlikely.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,738 ✭✭✭weisses


    Hoop66 wrote: »
    Is it not obvious from a photograph that shows all the floors of the building wreathed in smoke, that all those floors have fires on them?

    You can perhaps argue that not every single floor is on fire, but to deny that the majority are suggests deliberate obtuseness and a determination to ignore evidence that contradicts your opinion.

    Its not being obtuse all i ask for is evidence that shows building 7 being fully engulfed in flames as claimed here

    Same question for you ..which evidence am i ignoring ? .. I was the one showing evidence building 7 was never fully engulfed in flames (different thread)

    And FYI fully engulfed does mean every single floor is on fire


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 291 ✭✭Sixtus


    weisses wrote: »
    I'm still waiting for the photographic evidence which you claimed there is of the building fully engulfed in flames

    I showed it to you.
    They are wrong as i showed you in video's from different angles of the collapse ..building 7 was never fully engulfed in flames ... I think the biggest skeptic here would agree with me

    They are wrong?

    –FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Viscon is wrong when he said "the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire and smoke"

    or

    When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories.
    –FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myer

    Harry Myer is wrong?

    Firefighter Tiernach Cassidy is wrong when he said "It looked like heavy fire on seven floors. It was fully engulfed, that whole building." - you could see the flames going straight through from one side of the building to the other, that’s an entire block.

    –PAPD P.O. William Connor is wrong when he said; "the fires in building 7 were uncontrollable and that its collapse was imminent."

    How about Assistant Commissioner James Drury who said " There were hundreds of firefighters waiting to -- they were waiting for 7 World Trade Center to come down as it was on fire. It was too dangerous to go in and fight the fire."

    He's wrong too?

    Or
    Firefighter Steve Modica who said "7 World Trade was burning from the ground to the ceiling fully involved. It was unbelievable."

    He's wrong too? And
    PAPD K-9 Sergeant David who said "So I attempted to get in through the Barkley Street ramp which is on Barkley (sic) and West Broadway, but I was being held back by the fire department, because 7 World Trade, which is above the ramp, was now fully engulfed."

    Oh and one more,
    FDNY Capt. Jay Jonas, "At the same time, No. 5 World Trade Center, No. 6 World Trade Center and No. 7 World Trade Center were roaring. They were on fire. And they were right next to us. So we have all that smoke that we’re dealing with."


    So they're wrong, do you think they're mistaken, or lying?
    D
    o you think senior members of the FDNY aren't qualified to make statements about the state of a building on fire, and how bad the fires are.

    Or

    DO YOU ACTUALLY THINK THEY'RE TELLING THE TRUTH, BUT THEY'RE WRONG AND YOU'RE RIGHT? THAT FROM YOUR POSITION ON A COMPUTER 12 YEARS LATER YOU ARE CAPABLE OF MAKING A BETTER ASSESSMENT OF STATE OF WTC 7 THAN FDNY MEMBERS WHO WERE THERE ON THE DAY, AND WHO SUBSEQUENTLY WHEN ON THE RECORD TO STATE CLEARLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY WHAT THEY SAW ON THE DAY?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,593 ✭✭✭Hoop66


    weisses wrote: »
    Its not being obtuse all i ask for is evidence that shows building 7 being fully engulfed in flames as claimed here

    Same question for you ..which evidence am i ignoring ? .. I was the one showing evidence building 7 was never fully engulfed in flames (different thread)

    And FYI fully engulfed does mean every single floor is on fire
    OK, I can accept that not every single floor of the building was on fire.

    Let's be generous and say that 75% of the floors are on fire. How does that affect 1) the decision to remove rescue workers from the building and 2) the fact that the building collapsed?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,738 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    lol. That's not what I agreed at all. You must have a terrible memory.
    Either that or a very selective memory.

    I remembered you being unable to provide any coherent explanation for any of the facts which indicated a conspiracy.
    And I remember you being unable to explain how my explanation was impossible or unlikely.

    This is your post over the report
    King Mob wrote: »
    And for the last time. I do not believe the report is wrong. I do not believe the report makes a wrong statement.


  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    weisses wrote: »
    This is your post over the report
    Yup. You seem to be ignoring the context of that statement. Can't imagine why.

    However in reality:
    I believe the report, however I believe that the police saw a mural that they interpreted as depicting the attack when this wasn't actually the case.

    The MTI report was simply stating that there was reports or a van with a mural, but those reports were inaccurate.
    These reports exist, and the MTI report is accurate in saying that they do.

    You are conveniently forgetting that the MTI neglects to mention any explosion and says that the van was in fact an innocent delivery van.
    So is the report wrong there I take it?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,738 ✭✭✭weisses


    Sixtus wrote: »
    I showed it to you.

    No you did not al i saw was 1 corner of the building full of smoke

    So again you claimed there were photos showing building 7 fully engulfed in flames .. will you share them with us

    I showed you that your wrong


    Sixtus wrote: »
    They are wrong?

    Yep
    Sixtus wrote: »
    –FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Viscon is wrong when he said "the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire and smoke"

    One side of the building so he is half right

    or
    Sixtus wrote: »
    When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories.
    –FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myer

    Harry Myer is wrong?

    Yep .. video's of the collapse proof that



    DO YOU ACTUALLY THINK THEY'RE TELLING THE TRUTH, BUT THEY'RE WRONG AND YOU'RE RIGHT? THAT FROM YOUR POSITION ON A COMPUTER 12 YEARS LATER YOU ARE CAPABLE OF MAKING A BETTER ASSESSMENT OF STATE OF WTC 7 THAN FDNY MEMBERS WHO WERE THERE ON THE DAY, AND WHO SUBSEQUENTLY WHEN ON THE RECORD TO STATE CLEARLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY WHAT THEY SAW ON THE DAY?
    [/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE] [/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE] [/QUOTE]

    What ? can't here ye


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 44,080 ✭✭✭✭Micky Dolenz


    Mod

    Quit with the flaming please and argue the point.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,738 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Yup. You seem to be ignoring the context of that statement. Can't imagine why.

    However in reality:

    That quote was reality ...Im not like you that i need to make up quotes or alter them to make my point remember
    King Mob wrote: »
    The MTI report was simply stating that there was reports or a van with a mural, but those reports were inaccurate.

    So where is the evidence/proof that the report got it wrong other then YOUR explanation ??

    If you want to disagree with what is stated in an official report then you better back it up .. but hey you don't even believe peer reviewed study's these days so i wont hold my breath with this one as well


  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    weisses wrote: »
    That quote was reality ...Im not like you that i need to make up quotes or alter them to make my point remember
    Yes it is reality, but by removing it from it's context you are not being accurate. I explained exactly what I meant, you are determined to ignore what I am saying.
    weisses wrote: »
    So where is the evidence/proof that the report got it wrong other then YOUR explanation ??

    If you want to disagree with what is stated in an official report then you better back it up .. but hey you don't even believe peer reviewed study's these days so i hold my breath with this one as well
    Lol and around and around you go again. I shall try to explain it as clearly as possible.

    I do not believe the report is wrong, nor have I ever indicated as much.
    I believe however (because it is the most likely explanation) that the passage in the MTI report is simply recounting the erroneous police reports that the van had a mural of the planes attacking New York.
    I think this is made clear from the context (again, the enemy of your argument) since the report says that the van was innocent.

    Now, do you believe the van was innocent? Yes or no?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 291 ✭✭Sixtus


    weisses wrote: »
    No you did not al i saw was 1 corner of the building full of smoke

    One side of the building with smoking coming from every floor.
    So again you claimed there were photos showing building 7 fully engulfed in flames .. will you share them with us

    What if the exact specific photo you are demanding simply doesn't exist. It's like demanding that someone supply exact evidence of the moment John Wilks Booth bullet leaves the barrel of his gun, and another of the bullet lodging in Lincolns head as the only acceptable proof Wilkes shot Lincoln.
    I showed you that your wrong

    Really where?




    DO YOU ACTUALLY THINK THEY'RE TELLING THE TRUTH, BUT THEY'RE WRONG AND YOU'RE RIGHT? THAT FROM YOUR POSITION ON A COMPUTER 12 YEARS LATER YOU ARE CAPABLE OF MAKING A BETTER ASSESSMENT OF STATE OF WTC 7 THAN FDNY MEMBERS WHO WERE THERE ON THE DAY, AND WHO SUBSEQUENTLY WHEN ON THE RECORD TO STATE CLEARLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY WHAT THEY SAW ON THE DAY?


    I turned it up.

    You seem to think you are more qualified that dozens of members of the FDNY who were actually in New York on 9/11 to make a statement about the state of WTC 7 and it's fires.

    What are your qualifications?

    From what I can tell your only qualification as to whether or not WTC 7 was fully involved in fires or not is that you've not been shown a photograph that satisfies your skewed standard.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,738 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Yes it is reality, but by removing it from it's context you are not being accurate. I explained exactly what I meant, you are determined to ignore what I am saying.

    No i am being accurate what you said was your full answer to my question about the report

    I left nothing out

    King Mob wrote: »
    Lol and around and around you go again. I shall try to explain it as clearly as possible.

    I do not believe the report is wrong, nor have I ever indicated as much.
    I believe however (because it is the most likely explanation) that the passage in the MTI report is simply recounting the erroneous police reports that the van had a mural of the planes attacking New York.
    I think this is made clear from the context (again, the enemy of your argument) since the report says that the van was innocent.

    You can LoL me al you want but i asked you for the evidence/proof that the MTI report got it wrong regarding the statement about the van with the mural
    And were not getting any further with just your explanation of it or what you find is the most likely scenario

    There were continuing moments of alarm. A panel truck with a painting of a plane flying into the World Trade Center was stopped near the temporary command post. It proved to be rented to a group of ethnic Middle Eastern people who did not speak English. Fearing that it might be a truck bomb, the NYPD immediately evacuated the area, called out the bomb squad, and detained the occupants until a thorough search was made. The vehicle was found to be an innocent delivery truck.

    What am i taking out of context when the report states the above
    Is having that Mural on it a criminal offense? if not then its probably innocent


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    weisses wrote: »
    No i am being accurate what you said was your full answer to my question about the report

    I left nothing out
    Except for the dozens and dozens of times I tried to clarify the point :rolleyes:
    weisses wrote: »
    You can LoL me al you want but i asked you for the evidence/proof that the MTI report got it wrong regarding the statement about the van with the mural
    And were not getting any further with just your explanation of it or what you find is the most likely scenario
    Again, I don't think they got it wrong. They are just reporting the fact that there was reports of a van with what was taken to be a mural of the attacks.
    It is these reports that I am saying are wrong.
    weisses wrote: »
    There were continuing moments of alarm. A panel truck with a painting of a plane flying into the World Trade Center was stopped near the temporary command post. It proved to be rented to a group of ethnic Middle Eastern people who did not speak English. Fearing that it might be a truck bomb, the NYPD immediately evacuated the area, called out the bomb squad, and detained the occupants until a thorough search was made. The vehicle was found to be an innocent delivery truck.
    weisses wrote: »
    What am i taking out of context when the report states the above
    Is having that Mural on it a criminal offense? if not then its probably innocent
    So then you agree that the van did not explode, contain any bombs or was in anyway connected to the attacks?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,738 ✭✭✭weisses


    Sixtus wrote: »
    One side of the building with smoking coming from every floor.

    So now your going from fully engulfed to one side of the building ...... terrific


    Sixtus wrote: »
    What if the exact specific photo you are demanding simply doesn't exist. It's like demanding that someone supply exact evidence of the moment John Wilks Booth bullet leaves the barrel of his gun, and another of the bullet lodging in Lincolns head as the only acceptable proof Wilkes shot Lincoln.

    No i said
    weisses wrote: »
    Ohh yeah just like the firemen you quoted as saying building 7 was fully engulfed in flames

    Then you reply with this
    Sixtus wrote: »
    And photos, and the testimony of dozens of firefighters confirm that it was fully inflamed.

    So i ask for the photos that by your own claim confirms the building was fully inflamed.. and you come up with some waffle about John Wilks Booth

    Sixtus wrote: »
    Really where?

    The other thread you disappeared from
    Sixtus wrote: »
    You seem to think you are more qualified that dozens of members of the FDNY who were actually in New York on 9/11 to make a statement about the state of WTC 7 and it's fires.

    What are your qualifications?

    From what I can tell your only qualification as to whether or not WTC 7 was fully involved in fires or not is that you've not been shown a photograph that satisfies your skewed standard.

    I just ask you for photographs to back up your own claim ... You bring in photos as evidence then at least show them here


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,738 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    So then you agree that the van did not explode, contain any bombs or was in anyway connected to the attacks?

    Not at that point in time no


  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    weisses wrote: »
    Not at that point in time no
    So you believe the report is in fact wrong?

    What leads you to believe that it is wrong? Why do they not say it exploded when it did? Why if there's a cover-up to hide the explosion did they bother mentioning the van, never mind the fact it had a mural that some people thought was of the attack?

    Why are you demanding I provide evidence that the report is wrong (which I don't claim), when you can't provide the same?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,738 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    So you believe the report is in fact wrong?

    No

    The Van was innocent at the time but you and i don't know what happened after they said it was innocent It was only innocent at the time when they searched the van what happened when the van drove of is something i don't know


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 291 ✭✭Sixtus


    weisses wrote: »
    So now your going from fully engulfed to one side of the building ...... terrific

    No I did not. The prevailing wind blew the smoke out one side of the building.

    No i said



    Then you reply with this



    So i ask for the photos that by your own claim confirms the building was fully inflamed.. and you come up with some waffle about John Wilks Booth

    So to be clear, you're just ignoring every aspect of the evidence that WTC was fully involved in flames, such as the testimony of dozens of members of the FDNY because it disagrees with you, and instead are fixating on a very specific photo.

    I've shown you a photo of smoke billowing from every floor of the building that can only happen if the building is is fully involved. You're now moving the goalposts and ignoring the evidence

    You will ignore photos like this

    WTC7_Smoke_2.jpg

    wtc7fire1.jpg

    wtc7fire1.jpg


    [quote[The other thread you disappeared from
    [/quote]

    You didn't show anything on that thread. You've provided zero evidence that WTC 7 wasn't fully involved in fire.
    I just ask you for photographs to back up your own claim ... You bring in photos as evidence then at least show them here

    I've provided photos and eyewitness testimony that the building was fully involved. Your response "No the firemen were wrong". Nothing to support this statement.

    Tell you what Weiss, why don't you and I hop on a plane head to NY and wander into any FDNY firestation, and you can put your theories to the test with them. I'll be there to help you find your teeth.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 291 ✭✭Sixtus


    weisses wrote: »
    No

    The Van was innocent at the time but you and i don't know what happened after they said it was innocent It was only innocent at the time when they searched the van what happened when the van drove of is something i don't know

    Schrödinger's Van :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,738 ✭✭✭weisses


    Sixtus wrote: »
    No I did not. The prevailing wind blew the smoke out one side of the building.

    Rubbish .. it was a clear calm day



    Sixtus wrote: »
    So to be clear, you're just ignoring every aspect of the evidence that WTC was fully involved in flames, such as the testimony of dozens of members of the FDNY because it disagrees with you, and instead are fixating on a very specific photo.

    No i did not ignore it i showed you video's showing the building was never engulfed in flames

    You claim there are photos of the building fully engulfed in flames all i ask is that you show those photos
    Sixtus wrote: »
    I've shown you a photo of smoke billowing from every floor of the building that can only happen if the building is is fully involved. You're now moving the goalposts and ignoring the evidence

    You showed me a picture of smoke at one side of the building not a builing fully egulfed in flames ... now who is moving goalposts here ??

    You will ignore photos like this
    Sixtus wrote: »
    WTC7_Smoke_2.jpg

    showing one side of the building
    Sixtus wrote: »
    wtc7fire1.jpg

    Showing one side of the building with fire on 1 maybe 2 floors
    Sixtus wrote: »
    You didn't show anything on that thread. You've provided zero evidence that WTC 7 wasn't fully involved in fire.

    No you are the one that fails time and time to show the evidence building 7 was fully engulfed in flames

    Sixtus wrote: »
    I've provided photos and eyewitness testimony that the building was fully involved. Your response "No the firemen were wrong". Nothing to support this statement.

    You provided no photos of the building fully in flames you provided a wall of text with firemen saying things that many video's of building 7 disproof
    Sixtus wrote: »
    Tell you what Weiss, why don't you and I hop on a plane head to NY and wander into any FDNY firestation, and you can put your theories to the test with them. I'll be there to help you find your teeth.

    Will you pay fot the flight ?? if so i go tomorrow



    from 15 secs on

    is that building fully engulfed in flames prior to collapse yes or no ?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,593 ✭✭✭Hoop66


    weisses wrote: »
    Rubbish .. it was a clear calm day

    Why did this happen then?

    911smokeplume.jpg

    If it was so calm that the WTC7 smoke was not blown anywhere, what is so special about the smoke in that picture?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,738 ✭✭✭weisses


    Hoop66 wrote: »
    Why did this happen then?

    911smokeplume.jpg

    If it was so calm that the WTC7 smoke was not blown anywhere, what is so special about the smoke in that picture?

    Smoke was coming out at more sides of the building ... his own photos show that

    so you disagree it was a clear calm day ?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,593 ✭✭✭Hoop66


    I am not disagreeing that it was a clear and calm day, I am disagreeing with your assertion that prevailing winds could not blow smoke out of one side of the building.

    You are suggesting that the building is not fully engulfed because the smoke is only on one side of the building. When it was suggested that the prevailing winds blew the smoke to one side of the building, your response was:
    Rubbish .. it was a clear calm day

    So I am asking, if it was so calm that the smoke could not be blown from WTC7, why could the smoke be blown as in the picture we see above?

    You also claim that:
    Smoke was coming out at more sides of the building ... his own photos show that

    but previously, in response to the same photo say:
    You showed me a picture of smoke at one side of the building not a builing fully egulfed in flames ... now who is moving goalposts here ??

    I think you are so determined to prove your point that you are ignoring basic evidence.


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    weisses wrote: »
    Where are the photos that shows the building fully engulfed in flames ??
    Clearly one doesn't exist. There is not a single "flame" coming from a single floor in that photo. Just smoke...



  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    weisses wrote: »
    No

    The Van was innocent at the time but you and i don't know what happened after they said it was innocent It was only innocent at the time when they searched the van what happened when the van drove of is something i don't know
    So what makes you think that the same van could have driven off, loaded up with explosives then drive back to the exact same spot, only for the drivers to yet again be arrested before the van blew up?

    Why does the report not mention this?

    Why would they do this at all? And how does it fit into or indicate a conspiracy?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,738 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    So what makes you think that the same van could have driven off, loaded up with explosives then drive back to the exact same spot, only for the drivers to yet again be arrested before the van blew up?

    Why does the report not mention this?

    Why would they do this at all? And how does it fit into or indicate a conspiracy?

    I don't know .. I didn't write that report

    And i don't think anything ..fact is no one knows what happened with that van after it was deemed innocent at the time


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,738 ✭✭✭weisses


    Hoop66 wrote: »
    I am not disagreeing that it was a clear and calm day, I am disagreeing with your assertion that prevailing winds could not blow smoke out of one side of the building.

    You are suggesting that the building is not fully engulfed because the smoke is only on one side of the building. When it was suggested that the prevailing winds blew the smoke to one side of the building, your response was:



    So I am asking, if it was so calm that the smoke could not be blown from WTC7, why could the smoke be blown as in the picture we see above?

    You also claim that:



    but previously, in response to the same photo say:



    I think you are so determined to prove your point that you are ignoring basic evidence.

    He said that wind was blowing all the smoke out of one side of the building i stated and proved that wasn't the case with his own pictures he submitted


  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    weisses wrote: »
    I don't know .. I didn't write that report

    And i don't think anything ..fact is no one knows what happened with that van after it was deemed innocent at the time
    So then, since you can't know that it did explode or had any connection to 9/11 at all, why bring it up?

    Why do you think it is reasonable to suggest that they could have gone to get explosives, then come back to the exact same spot, get arrested again, then blow up the van, all for no describable reason?

    And again, why if the van did come back to explode, wasn't that mentioned in the MTI report?


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob,

    Do you accept that the van had a mural of a plane crashing into the WTC (or similar)?
    If not, why not?

    Why were the men stopped and detained?

    Why did they apparently flee?

    Why exactly have the police said on their radio that makes you think it was just a simple mix up?

    Why has 2 "Middle Eastern " men being arrested on 911 on suspicion of terrorism in New York not been reported on once...ever?


  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    King Mob,

    Do you accept that the van had a mural of a plane crashing into the WTC (or similar)?
    If not, why not?
    No.
    As I have explained several times in various threads in dozens of ways, it is much more likely that it was a logo or an advertisement that was misinterpreted.
    Why were the men stopped and detained?
    Because some police officers misinterpreted an innocuous ad or logo as a mural of a plane crashing into New York and believed this to be a possible connection to the attacks.
    Why did they apparently flee?
    Could be any number of reasons. Plucking one out of my head, they could have perhaps wanted to get a closer look at ground zero and drove close, but being stopped by police they could have believed they had broken some cordon or similar and believed themselves to be in trouble.
    Why exactly have the police said on their radio that makes you think it was just a simple mix up?
    Nothing on the radio makes me think that. What makes me think that is the complete and utter lack of any other evidence.
    And a simple mix up is a much more likely explanation than a vast and elaborate conspiracy to cover up something that makes no sense.
    Why has 2 "Middle Eastern " men being arrested on 911 on suspicion of terrorism in New York not been reported on once...ever?
    Because it's not really news? It'd barely be news on a normal day.

    Now why are you asking these questions while you are ignoring the questions about the conspiracy explanation?


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »
    No.
    As I have explained several times in various threads in dozens of ways, it is much more likely that it was a logo or an advertisement that was misinterpreted.
    The obvious question is WHY?

    WHY is it more likely when there is EXACTLY ZERO evidence to support it?
    King Mob wrote: »
    Because some police officers misinterpreted an innocuous ad or logo as a mural of a plane crashing into New York and believed this to be a possible connection to the attacks. .
    Then WHY wouldn't Minetta say this in his report? WHY would he say the following:
    "A panel truck with a painting of a plane flying into the World Trade Center was stopped near the temporary command post. "
    King Mob wrote: »
    Could be any number of reasons. Plucking one out of my head, they could have perhaps wanted to get a closer look at ground zero and drove close, but being stopped by police they could have believed they had broken some cordon or similar and believed themselves to be in trouble.
    Okay. So you agree that they fled because they considered that they were in trouble.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Nothing on the radio makes me think that. What makes me think that is the complete and utter lack of any other evidence.
    Which is consistent with a coverup.

    What evidence do you expect when the area was evacuated?
    King Mob wrote: »
    nd a simple mix up is a much more likely explanation than a vast and elaborate conspiracy to cover up something that makes no sense.
    There IS evidence of an explosion. The words of NYPD Officer at the scene.
    There is ZERO evidence of a "simple mix up". Correct me if I am wrong.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Because it's not really news? It'd barely be news on a normal day.
    That's nonsense and you know it.

    Hours after "Middle Eastern" men carry out the biggest terrorist attack in NY history with planes crashing into buildings two more "middle eastern" men are arrested in New York on suspicion of terrorism who were apparently driving a van containing a mural of planes crashing into buildings. According to a NYPD Officer at the scene these men fled and the van exploded.

    And this isn't "really news"? Unbelievable.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Now why are you asking these questions while you are ignoring the questions about the conspiracy explanation?
    I'm not ignoring anything. These men may have been Al Qaeda for all I know were taken into cudtody and "disapeared".


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    The obvious question is WHY?

    WHY is it more likely when there is EXACTLY ZERO evidence to support it?
    Because the alternative explanations for the facts are full of holes and don't make any sense.
    Then WHY wouldn't Minetta say this in his report? WHY would he say the following:
    "A panel truck with a painting of a plane flying into the World Trade Center was stopped near the temporary command post. "
    Because he probably wasn't expecting people to comb over his words to find evidence to support a conspiracy theory.

    The better questions, which are ignoring, is why does he say the van was innocent and neglects to mention it exploding.
    Okay. So you agree that they fled because they considered that they were in trouble.
    No, that's not what I said. I said it was one possibility.
    Others in include the officers on the scene mistaking something they did for an attempt to run, or again, second or third hand misreporting.
    Which is consistent with a coverup.
    It's also consistent with there being no explosion.
    What evidence do you expect when the area was evacuated?
    Pictures before and after of the van or the resulting damage?
    Any other witnesses reporting an explosion?
    The rest of the audio you like the cling to that would have more chatter confirming the explosion and the dispatch of bomb squads etc. Or indeed a lack of a clarification.

    Again, how was the audio of the radio chatter allowed to leak out, but nothing else was?
    There IS evidence of an explosion. The words of NYPD Officer at the scene.
    There is ZERO evidence of a "simple mix up". Correct me if I am wrong.
    But given that there is no evidence of an explosion at all, we are left with essentially two options.
    One is that there was a mix up.
    The other is there was a cover up.

    Straight off the bat, a cover up is the less likely explanation as mix ups over the radio, bad reporting and chinese whispers are all much more common than vast conspiracies.
    Then add to that the fact that none of the facts make any sense in the context of a conspiracy or a cover up.
    That's nonsense and you know it.

    Hours after "Middle Eastern" men carry out the biggest terrorist attack in NY history with planes crashing into buildings two more "middle eastern" men are arrested in New York on suspicion of terrorism who were apparently driving a van containing a mural of planes crashing into buildings. According to a NYPD Officer at the scene these men fled and the van exploded.

    And this isn't "really news"? Unbelievable.
    But what if the van didn't actually explode and didn't have the mural as you describe it?
    Then the arrest of guys who were then found to be completely innocent is not news on a day like 9/11.
    I'm not ignoring anything. These men may have been Al Qaeda for all I know were taken into cudtody and "disapeared".
    Yes you are ignoring the massive issues with the conspiracy explanations.

    Why were the vans there in the first place?
    Why did they have murals?
    Why did the police stop them?
    Why did the police talk about the van over the radio?
    Why did they arrest the guys?
    Why did they search the van?
    Why did they allow the radio chatter to get out?
    Why did they mention the van in the MTI report?


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »
    Because the alternative explanations for the facts are full of holes and don't make any sense.
    Just so we are clear: You are saying that scenario A that is supported by absolutely ZERO evidence is more probable than scenario B that is supported by 2 sources.

    Yes or No question.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Because he probably wasn't expecting people to comb over his words to find evidence to support a conspiracy theory.
    That is no kind of answer. Why did he say it???

    A) Was he correct?
    B) Was he lying? If so, why?
    C) Was he mistaken? If so, why?
    King Mob wrote: »
    The better questions, which are ignoring, is why does he say the van was innocent and neglects to mention it exploding.
    Because he works for the government and this episode is not part of the governments narrative.
    King Mob wrote: »
    No, that's not what I said. I said it was one possibility.
    Others in include the officers on the scene mistaking something they did for an attempt to run, or again, second or third hand misreporting.
    They are not possibilites. The Officer speaking on the radio who informs the others of the fleeing, explosion, and arrest is on the scene.

    King Mob wrote: »
    It's also consistent with there being no explosion.
    Yes. Both are valid.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Again, how was the audio of the radio chatter allowed to leak out, but nothing else was?
    It is not "radio chatter". It is the official communication channels of NY's emergency services.

    It didn't "leak out" either. It was recorded live by a HAM Radio enthusiast. It did not come from Police sources. Nothing has come from Police sources. Not even a single statement. Again, indicative of a coverup.
    King Mob wrote: »
    But given that there is no evidence of an explosion at all, we are left with essentially two options.
    One is that there was a mix up.
    The other is there was a cover up.
    There is evidence. The uncensored statements of the Police officer at the scene who witnessed it.

    King Mob wrote: »
    Straight off the bat, a cover up is the less likely explanation as mix ups over the radio, bad reporting and chinese whispers are all much more common than vast conspiracies.
    Then add to that the fact that none of the facts make any sense in the context of a conspiracy or a cover up.
    There is no need to apply this to larger context as it stands alone.


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    The following is me playing devils advocate.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Why were the vans there in the first place?
    Acting as a diversion.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Why did they have murals?
    The bait
    King Mob wrote: »
    Why did the police stop them?
    The mural
    King Mob wrote: »
    Why did the police talk about the van over the radio?
    Because that is how they communicate
    King Mob wrote: »
    Why did they arrest the guys?
    Because they fled and their van exploded
    King Mob wrote: »
    Why did they search the van?
    Because their van exploded
    King Mob wrote: »
    Why did they allow the radio chatter to get out?
    It obviously wasn't intentional. That is it wasn't released.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Why did they mention the van in the MTI report?
    To try and contradict the clear evidence in the police recording.


  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Just so we are clear: You are saying that scenario A that is supported by absolutely ZERO evidence is more probable than scenario B that is supported by 2 sources.

    Yes or No question.
    Scenario b is not supported by any sources.

    All you have is one police officer saying there was an explosion.
    Both scenarios explain why he would say this and explain the lack of the evidence of said explosion.
    Neither scenario has more supporting evidence than the other, but one is more likely and makes more sense.
    That is no kind of answer. Why did he say it???

    A) Was he correct?
    B) Was he lying? If so, why?
    C) Was he mistaken? If so, why?
    D) he was reporting that the van was reported to have a mural and believed that the context made it clear that it was not actually a mural in the end.
    Because he works for the government and this episode is not part of the governments narrative.
    So then why did he have to mention it at all?
    They are not possibilites. The Officer speaking on the radio who informs the others of the fleeing, explosion, and arrest is on the scene.
    How do you know that? The officer does not identify himself as the person who made the arrest, or actually says that he saw the van explode. you are inferring all of that based on your preconceived conclusion.
    Yes. Both are valid.
    And which happens more often do you think? A false report of a bomb or a massive cover up?
    It is not "radio chatter". It is the official communication channels of NY's emergency services.

    It didn't "leak out" either. It was recorded live by a HAM Radio enthusiast. It did not come from Police sources.
    So why isn't there other evidence? How are they able to stop all of that, but not this audio?
    Nothing has come from Police sources. Not even a single statement.
    Again, indicative of a coverup.
    Or again, indicative that there was no explosion.
    There is evidence. The uncensored statements of the Police officer at the scene who witnessed it.
    Lol, again demonstrating how chinese whispers work.
    It's not a statement and it's not uncensored.
    There is no need to apply this to larger context as it stands alone.
    But it standing alone still involves a massive conspiracy. For the cover up to work you need the entire police force and emergency services of New York, several government bodies, the people and organisations behind the MTI report, every news agency and a large chunk of the public.

    And this is before you add the nonsensicalness of the rest of the conspiracy.


  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Acting as a diversion.
    The bait
    A diverson from what? By whom? And why?
    These are not answers.
    And why would they want a diversion only to then have no one pay attention to the diversion and then cover up the diversion?
    The mural
    Because that is how they communicate
    Because they fled and their van exploded
    Because their van exploded
    It obviously wasn't intentional. That is it wasn't released.
    And none of this makes any sense. Why would they not have told the police, keeping them from interfering and thus not giving intrepid truthers the evidence to blow the entire thing open?
    To try and contradict the clear evidence in the police recording.
    But why not just never mention it? Cause seemingly trying to "contradict the evidence" only makes it more obvious, if we are to follow your argument.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,880 ✭✭✭knucklehead6


    How did we go from a car bomb at the pentagon, to WTC 7 collapsing/being demolished to mention of a van with a mural (something i'd never heard of before) exploding/not exploding?

    I'm only just after finding this forum, so forgive me if this is the usual train of thought here that it sways wildly from the point raised in the OP. And i don't mean that as back seat modding. I just think it's fascinating to watch the truthers argue with people who believe the official report


  • Advertisement
  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »
    Scenario b is not supported by any sources.

    All you have is one police officer saying there was an explosion.
    Both scenarios explain why he would say this and explain the lack of the evidence of said explosion.
    Neither scenario has more supporting evidence than the other, but one is more likely and makes more sense.

    "Scenario B" i.e. that the van contained a mural depicting a plane (or planes) crashing into the WTC (or similar) is supported by two sources.
    1. Norman Minetta, US Transport Secretary during 9/11
    2. NYPD Police transmissions from 9/11.
    Agreed?


    Now you seem to be of the opinion that the van did not contain any such mural? Is this correct? If so, what evidence do you have to support this?


    (Lets keep it simple. I'd appreciate it if you would just give straightforward and honest answers).


  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    "Scenario B" i.e. that the van contained a mural depicting a plane (or planes) crashing into the WTC (or similar) is supported by two sources.
    1. Norman Minetta, US Transport Secretary during 9/11
    2. NYPD Police transmissions from 9/11.
    Agreed?
    No not agreed. And you are also moving the goalposts here as scenario b in this context involved the van exploding, not the mural.

    The MTI report is simply repeating reports that were in the end erroneous. This is made clear by the context.
    Only one police officer mentions the supposed mural on the radio.
    Now you seem to be of the opinion that the van did not contain any such mural? Is this correct? If so, what evidence do you have to support this?
    Again, yes as I have repeatedly and clearly stated.

    And again, the reason I believe that this is the case is because police misidentifying an innocuous advertisement or logo is a much more likely explanation than in being a mural painted before the attacks. (Perhaps it could have been a crappy hastily painted one made after the fact, but I still believe that a mistake is more likely than that)

    Now what evidence, other than your determined reading of a report and the report of one police officer you can't identify or actually confirm saw the van at all, that it was a mural of 9/11?
    (Lets keep it simple. I'd appreciate it if you would just give straightforward and honest answers).
    Sure, and I trust you're willing to do the same and go back and give straight and honest answers to the posts of questions you've just left hanging?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 291 ✭✭Sixtus


    weisses wrote: »
    Smoke was coming out at more sides of the building ... his own photos show that

    so you disagree it was a clear calm day ?

    Yes the wind was blowing in a easterly direction quiet clearly.

    Similarly dozens of members of the FDNY state that the building was fully involved in fire, your rebuttal is just claiming that they are "wrong" without providing evidence of why you think they are wrong.

    So Weiss why are the firefighters who stated the WTC 7 was fully involved in fire are wrong?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 291 ✭✭Sixtus


    There IS evidence of an explosion. The words of NYPD Officer at the scene.

    Which Officer? Whats their name?

    What scene, what is the specific address of the explosion.

    There is no evidence aside from a anonymous alleged NYPD officer. There's no evidence of damage on King Street on 9/11. No casualties. No property damage. Please prove me wrong, and provide some.

    If you really think that the idea of a radio broadcast, that claims that it's of a NYDP officer reporting on a explosion, that there is no evidence of the explosion or the identity of the officer, then you are either playing dumb or your brain is made of triple choc chip fudge stupid.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭enno99


    @ BrownBomber

    Enno, you are wasting your time with King Mob.

    I found this to be sound advice so much so I broadened it to the new philosopher here Sixtus

    just like his predecessor Diogenes he seems to just want to get on peoples tits


  • Advertisement
Advertisement