Alex Jones' Prisonplanet Picks Up On EMT E-Mail
The sad thing is, just like the Lauro Chavez story, even after this gets proven fake, they will still cite it as evidence.
A New Jersey EMT has gone public on how emergency workers were told that Building 7 was going to be "pulled," before a 20 second demolition countdown broadcast over radio preceded its collapse. The ground zero rescue worker also blows the whistle on how he witnessed multiple underground support columns of the WTC towers that had been severed before the buildings imploded.
In a letter to Loose Change producer Dylan Avery, the individual who wishes to remain anonymous refering to himself only as Mike, 30, NJ, describes how he has repeatedly tried to alert numerous authorities to what he saw on 9/11 but was ignored or told to "shut up" on every occasion, and ultimately fired for disorderly conduct.
The EMT now dismisses the official government explanation of events and slams the 9/11 commission as a "whitewash."
The article then goes on to completely lie about the use of the term "pull" in demolitions.
Since then, debunkers and Silverstein's office itself have tried to argue that Silverstein simply meant to "pull" or evacuate the firefighters out of the building, yet in the same documentary explosives experts are seen demolishing the remnants of other buildings in the ground zero area and repeatedly use the industry term "pull" to describe a controlled demolition.
As we commented in a previous post, the term "pull" in regards to the remnants of other buildings, WTC 6 specifically, was referring to literally pulling the building over using heavy equipment and cables.
posted by James B. @ 7:41 AM
59 comments
59 Comments:
Well in their eyes, they can never lose. If they are idiots and run with a fake story, they can just claim he was a disinfo agent. Those damn JREFers must be behind it!
Hell, why not cut out the middleman and anonymously confess to planting some of the explosives?
It would hold about as much water as this guy's story, whoever he is.
What, nobody with a scanner caught the countdown?
The story is so ridiculous that I have to wonder if someone is pulling Dylan's leg. Did somebody here write that email? Fess up.
(We all knew it was intentionally pulled)
I find this comment interesting that he used the word pulled and not blown up. It is also interesting that they were in the basement and saw an 8' section blown out.
Why only one?
With all the traffic in the lower floors, how did they manage to wire it?
If a 30' courtyard explodes why are these folks the only ones to see it? If they were in the towers basement just before the collapse, they must have ran pretty fast.
This EMT's bravery has convinced me to come clean. I'm going to e-mail Dylan and let him know about the CIA space satellites that I witnessed firing at the WTC on 9/11 while I was getting probed on board the alien mother-ship with George Bush and Ariel Sharon overseeing the operation.
Hey, that's weird...I wonder who those men in the black suits walking up my driveway are.....
atx .... NO CARRIER ....
Would you guys kill your Moms before admitting that there may be some validity to the questions about 9/11?
Call in and ask Alex Jones where Lauro is.
The story is so ridiculous that I have to wonder if someone is pulling Dylan's leg.
Whoever it is better be careful.
You could be locked up for strapping explosives to someone's leg. ;-)
Would you guys kill your Moms before admitting that there may be some validity to the questions about 9/11?
Would you toss your own daughter into a gas chamber if you discovered your wifes mother was jewish?
Don't bother answering... we already know.
A very interesting story indeed. Maybe it was one of these guys behind the letter: http://911proof.com/11.html
Or maybe it was this guy:
Construction worker Phillip Morelli describes being thrown to the ground by two explosions while in the fourth subbasement of the North Tower. The first, which threw him to the ground and seemed to coincide with the plane crash, was followed by a larger blast that again threw him to the ground and this time blew out walls.
He then made his way to the South Tower and was in the subbasement there when the second plane hit, again associated with a powerful underground blast. This is one of a series of interviews with WTC survivors done by NY1 News: http://ny1.com/pages/RRR/
911special_survivors.html
Or maybe these guys:
http://www.chiefengineer.org/
article.cfm?seqnum1=1029
Oh wait, it could very well be one of these guys who describe the building about to BLOW UP.
http://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=Vr5TxKTMRx0
Oh man it could be this guy, but dang he gives his name--
Reporter: “I'm here with an emergency worker. He's a first year NYU medical student. He was down there; he was trying to help people. His name is Darryl.”
Darryl: "Yeah I was just standing there, ya know... we were watching the building [WTC 7] actually 'cuz it was on fire... the bottom floors of the building were on fire and... we heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder... turned around - we were shocked to see that the building was, ah well it looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building and the windows all busted out... it was horrifying... about a second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that... we saw the building crash down all the way to the ground... we were in shock." - 1010 WINS NYC News Radio (09/11/01)
No no no, wait it might be the folks in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=jnbpz9udYus
Maybe it was Willie Rodriguez faking it?? Naah he already went public.
Too bad for both the OS and the CT that the guy won't provide his name, although it is understandable.
And if this individual isn't proven to be a fake, what then?
First line of illogical thought: trying to prove the guy is a fraud by using the term 'pull'. Pull is the term used in the industry to assist explosive charges by using cables and cranes.
Imposionworld.com
How the hell does the general public know what the term pull means in the CD industry? If his story is true, then he didn't describe the pull of that building, the person on the bull horn did. I love it...UH UH He is a fraud, he said pull! Nice try though.
I guess all those folks were frauds too. Freakin' OS deniers. Now I know why you guys use deny so much, because your great at it.
Fraud or not, the evidence is overwhemling something other than damage and fire were at work on that day.
It is also interesting that they were in the basement and saw an 8' section blown out.
Why only one?
Perhaps they were only in a position to see 1. Do you think they were on a fact finding mission or something?
With all the traffic in the lower floors, how did they manage to wire it?
Well think like a criminal terrorist and you can come up with all sorts of ways.
I think it's more likely that the guy's a fraud because - as noted in the previous comments section - he said his friend was working in the intelligence services for close to two years after he said the guy was dead. I mean, we can (and have) argued before over what "Pull it" means, but nobody forgets whether their friend is dead or not. That's the sort of thing that tends to lodge in the memory.
Sorry, my mistake, he said "the service", presumably meaning the fire service, rather than "the intelligence services". My point still stands - nobody forgets whether or not their friend is dead.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
the individual who wishes to remain anonymous...
Interesting.
However, I got this letter the other day, via e-mail; the person who wrote it prefers to remain anonymous as well, so I will respect their privacy:
Dear Simon:
I have intimate knowledge of the 9/11 attacks, as I was in New York City the morning they happened. I saw the 2 planes hit the WTC towers, and, hours later, when I was near Ground Zero to assist the victims, I became aware that WTC 7 was heavily damaged by debris from the 2 WTC tower collapses, and that the only "warning" that came was from the firemen on the scene who realized, as good firemen do, that the building was going to fall from being weakened.
There was no conspiracy - just an attack.
Thanks for listening.
__________
See? Letters like this prove that 9/11 was nothing more than a terrorist attack perpetrated by 19 Muslims.
Very true, Simon. It also shows that firemen are also structural engineers too, which they aren't. But interesting read though.
bg-
What a stupid, stupid question. If it came down to it and I had to choose between my mother's life and admitting there's some validity to any of the 9/11 CT's, then of course I would admit it. I'd be lying, but I'd be saving my mother's life.
However, that will never happen. See, it's not a dilemma that normal, right-thinking people have. It's a ridiculous, juvenile question meant to do two things--1)get the other person to admit that they are insanely unreasonable enough to even hypothetically kill his mother, and 2)to use a childish argument to coerce the other person into admitting that he might be wrong.
I'll be the first to admit that I'm wrong, but only based on solid evidence. Would you stake your entire view of the 9/11 attacks on this EMT's word? Of course you wouldn't. Even a dope knows (hopefully) that anonymous testimony isn't worth anything. The EMT is free from responsibility to tell the truth, if there even is an EMT.
I know it's hard, but be reasonable, bg.
Oh god, the Stupid just won't slow down:
In addition, there were no firefighters in WTC 7 to "pull" in the first place.
Dr. Shyam Sunder, of the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST), which investigated the collapse of WTC 7, is quoted in Popular Mechanics (9/11: Debunking the Myths, March, 2005) as saying: "There was no firefighting in WTC 7."
The FEMA report on the collapses, from May, 2002, also says about the WTC 7 collapse: "no manual firefighting operations were taken by FDNY."
The FDNY was given Evacuation and Rescue orders. Those aren't firefighting orders, but they were in WTC7. It's another case of a CT'er losing the Turing Test.
Well Thanks Swing, This is a very good account of a building suffering a catastrophic internal structural failure, perhaps due to the fires this fellow reports seeing. Loud thundering noise? Well yes the kind of sound you would expect if major load carrying beams were snapping or welds breaking, but bombs? Hardly.
"Darryl: "Yeah I was just standing there, ya know... we were watching the building [WTC 7] actually 'cuz it was on fire... the bottom floors of the building were on fire and... we heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder... turned around - we were shocked to see that the building was, ah well it looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building and the windows all busted out... it was horrifying... about a second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that... we saw the building crash down all the way to the ground... we were in shock."
"there was one of the huge steel and concrete support pillars with an 8 foot section blown out of the center of it. We looked around and there were other support columns that were the same."
There was a pgm on the history chanel last night, it clearly showed that CD would have been impossible on 3 huge buildings and nobody notice especially on girders in the basemant which are the largest. They have to be cut in the center and charges must be placed on both sides of the "H" section then wired with Primacord to a detonator some where. Where was the detonator, in or close to the buildings outside? How would they hide the primacord so they would be at a safe distance?
And why these clowns insist explosions heard when the plains hit have anything to do with a CD. With a true CD you don't have explosions happening 30 or 40 minutes BEFORE the collapse. They happen right before or during the implosion.
To be a truther you are supposed to believe these guys did something no other CD teams has done before. Imploded a building in slow motion. A bang here a bang there.
Shear stupidity.
You mean you haven't heard? It turns out a monkey got hold of the detonator. We had agents chasing him all over Manhattan, but the little bastard just kept hopping around, pushing the buttons at random. Almost ruined the whole plan.
Thanks for setting me straight Alex:)
I wonder if the toofers have ever heard the noise that a wing makes when it breaks during a stress test?
Dear Dylan:
I was fired from my job for bad behaviour. Now I want the truth to be known so that all those who ridiculed...I mean all those who wouldnt listen to me will now be seen for the frauds they are. 9/11 was an inside job.
Yours sincerely
Disgruntled Mikey, 30, NJ
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
The fraud Swing Dumpster shovels another steaming pile.
The conspiracy liar who wrote the fake "letter" stated that the crowd was warned that the building (WTC 7) was going to be "pulled." No, WTC 7 was NOT going to have cables attached to it--IT WAS FAR TOO BIG. Nobody was "pulling" anything, except the legs of those too stupid to spot the deception.
Nobody used the term "pull." The liars have set this trap for themselves with their insane insistence that Larry Silverstein's suggestion that the contingent of firefighters be PULLED out of the unstable building somehow meant that he, the owner, was demanding that the Fire Department (!) blow up his own building. The liars are unfazed by the fact that the Fire Department is not in the business of blowing up buildings.
Swing Dumpster's ancient quotes are debunked in many places. Perhaps the most useful compilations are available on debunking911.com and 911myths.com.
The false claim that somebody other than a conspiracy liar used the term "pull" exposes the whole game.
pomeroo--perhaps you will learn to debate without name calling one day, but I doubt it.
did that frau jenny sparks annoy you so bad you think straight even less these days?
Ewing, you make a few mistakes in your post.
Jenny Sparks doesn't annoy me at all. She is a highly entertaining loon.
You accuse me of name-calling, but Swingie has been shown to be a fraud many, many times. Writing "the fraud Swing Dumpster" (okay, the "Dumpster" part is not polite) is equivalent to writing "the actor Johnny Depp."
Incidentally, you neglected to comment on my assertion that the misuse of the term "pull" exposed the letter-writer as a conspiracy liar and a fake. Must have slipped your mind.
Very true, Simon. It also shows that firemen are also structural engineers too, which they aren't. But interesting read though.
So members of the "truth" movement are considered qualified when they say that WTC 7 was brought down with explosives even though they are not structural engineers yet firefighters, who constantly work around buildings in various states of collapse are NOT qualified to talk about WTC 7 because they are not structural engineers? Nice double-standard asshole...
Also, it likely wasn't the firefighters that made the final assessment on WTC7. I've read a handful of accounts where the firefighter mentions "building investigations people" (my phrase; can't remember the official title) on the scene, which is apparently common in these kinds of situation (heavyil damaged, burning building), who were the ones that ultimately said, "Yeah, this thing will likely collapse."
EMT email is topgun85@comcast.net
This e-mail's a Hitler's diary, a Donation of Constantine, a Protocols of Zion. It's exactly what the 9/11 Truth movement want. Therefore it ought to be treated with the utmost caution. People, if you defend it until it's proven to be false, you'll lost ALL the shreds of credibility you've got left. Hey, for all you know it could be the product of a prankster who's laughing up his sleeve that so many people in the 9/11 Truth movement are taking it as true.
The story is EXACTLY what the 'truthers' were looking for. It is therefore either the product of a misguided person who believes that this is what happens and therefore his forgery is justified, or a joker who wants to make the 'Truthers' look like a bunch of gullible kooks.
Ohh Pomeroo , I've examined those sites and the logic they use is quite simple to counter. Because there were explosions going off all over the place, that doesn't mean they were explosive devices. And it doesn't disprove explosve devices.
Considering what the firefighter's, first reponders and live press reports including video and radio, statements, FBI officials thought (truck bomb in the basement) eyewitnesses in the basement thought (I wont even refernce 'Mike ' at this point) victims in the basement thought, etc. a rational thinking person would come to the conclusion that explosive devices were used in the destruction of the towers. You would better serve your country by championing an investigation into that faucet of the attacks rather than denying it.
Until you disprove the use of said devices, they still remain a viable hypothesis which of course was ignored by the 9/11 Commission as they refused to hear anyone who wanted to testify about explosions in the basement prior to impact and after. We all know the NIST refused to consider explosive devices.
POM, I'm inclined to believe you don't read jack. If the story is true, whoever the writer is he claimed someone with a bull horn said they were going to pull the building. But that can't be because gosh darn it, that is used with cables and cranes and such. In order for us to accept that, we have to believe that the person with the bull horn was either-
A. Was a professionl demolition expert/s who knows the difference and lied about the behavior of the building.
B. Or your logic is wrong, because there were no professional demolition experts on site and therefore the person using the bull horn does not know the difference or the meaning of the word pull in the demoltion industry.
I think the facts will show if 'Mike's' story is true, B is the correct scenario. If Mike's story is not true, that does not disqualify THE NUMEROUS other reports of explosions. I won't accept Mike's story as 100% factual until he releases his identity. On the other hand, his story does have some support from many of the other witnesses as I linked to and as I'm sure none of you read.
You really have to stop denying this fact, Pom. To do so you even show your ignorance or denial of history regarding terrorist attacks against the WTC.
And do us all a big favor Pomeroo, please link to or repost where I have been proven a fraud. If not, I think we can all determine who the fraud really is.
911truthy, you of course make the assumption that in order for explosive devices to be used IT HAD TO HAVE BEEN IN THE FASHION and APPERANCE OF INDUSTRY CD. Wrong!
Well yes the kind of sound you would expect if major load carrying beams were snapping or welds breaking, but bombs? Hardly.
Can you provide a link to the sound of I beams snapping or welds breaking so I can compare that sound with the loud clap of thunder on the video tape so my theory can be proven wrong.
And remember for your 'theory' to hold water, all those I beams and welds had to snap at once to create the singular clap of thunder. Have fun trying to prove that.
Thanks I would greatly appreciate it.
http://jeremy.zawodny.com/blog/archives/008468.html
The breaking of wings could easly sound like an explosion. A similar thing occures during tensil strength test on steel and other hi strength metal.
Comperssed gass cylinders, transformers and many other things that were presant in the buildings could and probably did explode.
I miss wired a 220 volt outlet once and when I hit the current it sounded like a cherry bomb.
Acoustics waves are very sneaky and can get through the smallest slits in metal boxes. Sound is a waveform that travels through matter. Although it is commonly associated in air, sound will readily travel through many materials such as water and steel. Some insulating materials absorb much of the sound waves, preventing the waves from penetrating the material. Sound could easily travel from the top of the towers to the bottom. Sound in air is approximately 344 meters/second, 1130 feet/second or 770 miles per hour at room temperature of 20° C (70° F).
Swingie, all of your posts are utter rubbish. You prove yourself a fraud every time you unload. Here's the problem with your, heh-heh, logic: Nobody but a conspiracy liar talks about "pulling" a building. If you're in the demolition industry, you use the term only for a specific type of operation. If you're an outsider, it would never occur to you to associate the imminent collapse of a building with something that is being pulled. The liars' use of the term makes no sense. They invented it in order to pretend that Larry Silverstein a) was confessing publicly to an unprecedented crime, and b) was asking the Fire Department--insanely--to blow up his own building. I understand that if you're a loon, you have no problem with asking the Fire Department to blow up a building, but some us do. We have the same problem we'd have with someone who asked the mailman to fix the leak under his kitchen sink.
There were no explosives in the WTc. The reason no one in the demolition industry buys the conspiracy liars' silly fabrications is that the collapses of the Twin Towers obviously are initiated at the impact floors. And, yes, planes really did fly into those buildings.
The forthcoming NIST Report will show why no explosives were used to bring down WTC7, but, as you have no intention of reading it, that won't inconvenience you very much.
Can you provide a link to the sound of I beams snapping or welds breaking so I can compare that sound with the loud clap of thunder on the video tape so my theory can be proven wrong.
Video tape, Sieg Heiler? You never said anything about any video tape.
To refresh your memory, here's your original post on the subject from this very page:
"Reporter: “I'm here with an emergency worker. He's a first year NYU medical student. He was down there; he was trying to help people. His name is Darryl.”
Darryl: "Yeah I was just standing there, ya know... we were watching the building [WTC 7] actually 'cuz it was on fire... the bottom floors of the building were on fire and... we heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder... turned around - we were shocked to see that the building was, ah well it looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building and the windows all busted out... it was horrifying... about a second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that... we saw the building crash down all the way to the ground... we were in shock." - 1010 WINS NYC News Radio (09/11/01)"
You claimed you had a video tape when you knew full well that you did not. How long were you going to lie to us about the evidence you have?
And in the end, shouldn't it be "Darryl" who decides wether the sound of snapping I-beams matches what he heard that day?
Awesome vid steve, thanks for that. Those aircraft are truly amazing.
It is amazing just how far they flex before they break. I have seen a number and the noise is amazingly loud, like an explosion :)
pomeroo-you are right. he should not be calling you a dumpster. let we who aree truthers not imatate the worst of "skeptics".
As for the british frau sparks, perhaps I am mistaken. it is just you said many frustrating things about her at jref and so I have this impression. if it is wrong i appologize.
this reminds me--do you really think you can tell if a writer is man or woman just by their writing as you claimed at jref?
And it doesn't disprove explosve devices.
And until you prove they're explosives devices, they don't exist.
Ewing, a few corrections:
I'm the one using the offensive term "dumpster."
You are not a "truther," as truth is a meaningless concept to you. You are a fantasist, because you are wedded, for purely emotional reasons, to unsupportable beliefs. People who understand exactly how insane the nonsense they promote really is are accurately, if harshly, termed conspiracy liars.
I'm not sure what you mean by "frustrating" in regard to my various commnets on Jenny Sparks. She is a spectacularly ignorant and dishonest person. Her over-the-top viciousness makes her easy to ridicule.
No, it is not always possible to determine from a short sample of prose the gender of the writer. Occasionally, the voice is distinctively male or female, as it was for the anonymous poster you allude to. I felt it was highly probable that the writer was female, and it turned out that I was right.
Nobody but a conspiracy liar talks about "pulling" a building. If you're in the demolition industry, you use the term only for a specific type of operation. If you're an outsider, it would never occur to you to associate the imminent collapse of a building with something that is being pulled.
That is comical how you justify your nonsense? As an outsider, I would NEVER use the term pull? That is funny. One you use the term never which is utter nonsense. Two, I find it very pompous to assume you know exactly what term or words people would use to describe what happened. With your logic then, you must agree with all of those folks who stated they were told "they were bringing it down...or building 7 is going to blow up...etc. Welcome to the CD of WTC 7 club.
SteveW That was a great video. Very impressive sound. Do you ever examine my links?
One question though SteveW, that sound didn't destroy subbasements in the building, cause damage to the lobbies, etc. etc. the sound of your 220 experience probably didn't blow the walls out of your house, and all those items you listed sure didn't create a cloud of white smoke at ground level that was several stories high. I appreciate your effort in trying to explain away the use of explosive devices but your examples don't stand up to scrutiny.
And where exactly was a stationary plane wing that was broken at ground level to cause that loud sound?
Sword Of Nazi Lover I didn't ask you for a video tape. I asked you for a link to a sound that sounds like a clap of thunder that might explain what happpened prior to the collapse of WTC 7. I have the video, I want to compare your sources to see if it best fits your particular theory or mine. And based upon your response, I would say you don't have the necessary evidence to support your claim, which is nonsense, blah blah, which is why you attacked me,claimed I don't have the video, blah blah, instead of educating me on the sounds of thunder claps.
Sword of Truth? Naa Sword of Lies.
You probably still support the air qualitiy data put out by the EPA don't you and all those people getting sick are frauds?
Now if you can't provide me a link I will accept the fact that your pretty much FOS.
POM, you forgot to relink to all the evidence to support your statement that I am a fraud. Put up or shut up fraud.
No, Swingie, you would NEVER use the term "pull" to describe the blowing up of a building. Dentists don't talk about "mowing" their patients' teeth; accountants don't talk about "broiling" their clients' tax forms; pitchers don't talk about "scalloping" a slider to the hitter. Deep stuff, huh?
For proof that you are a total fraud, I would submit your posts on this thread.
I have seen most of your links and like you they are mostly opinion and conjecture. You believe that the good of the one or 2 out weighs the good of the many. You ask these stupid questions, take things out of context and totally avoid any questions you can't answer, which are most of them. Why is that?
I never said sound destroyed anything, the subject was sound of explosions and as usual you could not counter so you divert. Does not work anymore. My examples of CD are used in the industry, so much for your scrutiny.
How a detailed explaination to back up your claims and back it up with real experts and scientific evidence that is equal to what has been put fourth by the real experts?
Why don't you explain the process involved in building demolition?
How could this be done and nobody notice?
Were the core girders exposed or covered up?
Why were these socalled explosives placed on different levels?
How did the planes hit the exact spot where they were suposidly planted?
You have yet to explain how the demolition could be done and nobody notice, all we get is some fantisy about radio controlled explosives.
Do you know how these charges must be placed and why?
Where was the detonator, in or close to the buildings outside?
How would they hide the primacord so they would be at a safe distance?
With all the traffic in the lower floors, how did they manage to wire it?
When did they wire it?
When are you clowns going to give reports by qualified people to back up your claims?
Pomeroo alright to end you nonsense once and for all, I decided to check with the experts at Thesaurus.com Lets take a look at the synonyms for pull and decide if you are full of shit or not.
Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus - Cite This Source
Main Entry: pull
Part of Speech: verb 1
Definition: draw
Synonyms: cull, dislocate, drag, extract, gather, haul, heave, jerk, lug, paddle, pick, pluck, remove, rend, rip, row, schlep, sprain, strain, stretch, take out, tear, tow, trail, truck, tug, twitch, uproot, weed*, wrench, yank
Antonyms: push
Source: Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.3.1)
Copyright © 2007 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
* = informal or slang
Copyright © 2007 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus - Cite This Source
Main Entry: pull down
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: destroy
Synonyms: annihilate, bulldoze, decimate, demolish, destruct, dismantle, knock over, let down, lower, raze, remove, ruin, take down, tear down, wreck
Yeah Pom, I would never use the term pull to describe destroying something. Now if you will give me your home address, I will mail you the blue ribbon award for Fraudlent Claims and Full of Shit.
SteveW Your exactly right. Sound was the topic. Specifically the sound of explosions. What would cause the destruction of materials, people, and create white smoke clouds several stories high and sound like a clap of thunder? Explosive devices. None of your sound producing examples resulted in massive destruction of anything.
According to your questions, all of the answers depend upon the traditional industy standard of controlled demolition. In previous threads I explained why this was not the case with 1 and 2.
If I could answer you questions, I would be a prime suspect, would I not?
Stevew, think creatively and diabolical, like a terrorist, and I'm sure you could answer those questions all on your own. Better yet, seek out the top explosive experts in the world (probably in the military) and ask them how they would pull it off.
Remember John Skilling the Head Designer of the WTC thought the top explosive experts could bring his tower's down with explosive devices, not with planes and fuel.
Where there is a will there is a way!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
No, Swingie, you would NEVER describe the act of blowing something up as "pulling" it--NEVER.
Let's clarify what makes you a fraud. When it is clear to everyone that the conspiracy liars have trapped themselves by their own stupidity, you continue to seek deceptions. We all get the idea that Silverstein's original request to pull the contingent of firefighters out of the unstable building was deliberately distorted by the loons. And they got caught. But, you don't give up. You continue to pour gasoline on the fire by bobbing and weaving.
One mo' time: Nobody said over a bullhorn that that WTC 7 was going to be "pulled." The liars have painted themselves into another corner.
pomeroo--it is sad you throw stones from your glass house. i know jenny is very sarcastic, but she was never vicious, though perhaps you think so. but that is after you posted insults hours around the clock at 911Blogger.
anyone will be angry if you provoke them much. pehaps you give sample of this viciousness?
i assume frustration is what caused your obsesive posting and say this by trying to help YOU. i also had same problem with people i don't agree with. do not go over the top and others will not respond so. maybe you can show how this frau provoked you so before you hours and hours of posts?
Still tapdancing and trying to spin as usual. The fact remains that there are many things that sound like explosions but you go off on some tangent that has nothing to do with anything I said.
You can't answer so you just duck and run. Your explanation was sheer BS with no basis in fact and you only provide your unqualified opinion. Provide facts if you can.
"If I could answer you questions, I would be a prime suspect, would I not?"
Really dumb try at diversion
Explosive experts have given their assessment and you have given nothing to back up what you say. You are nothing but a coward, you refuse to answer because you can't, it does not fit your theory. Like all toofers all you do is make claims and ask dumb questions. Well I am asking and if you can't answer it simply proves you are nothing but a fraud.
Pure speculation on Skilling's part it is too bad that Yamasaki is not alive. The towers were unique and the hows, whys of the collapse can only be speculation. There are no benchmarks for these crashes to use as a baseline so every conspirisy expert can come out of the woodwork with silly theories and completly avoid the true facts.
The original design called for the towers to take a hit from a 707 that was lost in the fog, it seems that 30 years later that opinions differ. I have seen pre 911 specs that confirm this. Perhaps because the towers seemed to be very well built that one could speculate that they could take more but a 707 lost in the fog was what they were designed for. The whole point of the unique design was to build a building that was light weight and have unobstructed floor space.
They orginally were to be around 80-90 stories but late in the design changes were made to make them 110 stories, perhaps this had something to do with the collapse, nobody knows.
Yamasaki and engineers John Skilling and Les Robertson worked closely, and the relationship between the towers' design and structure was clear. Faced with the difficulties of building to unprecedented heights, the engineers employed an innovative structural model: a rigid "hollow tube" of closely spaced steel columns with floor trusses extended across to a central core. The columns, finished with a silver-colored aluminum alloy, were 18 3/4" wide and set only 22" apart, making the towers appear from afar to have no windows at all.
The Port Authority envisioned a project with a total of 10 million square feet of office space. To achieve this, Yamasaki considered more than a hundred different building configurations before settling on the concept of twin towers and three lower-rise structures. Designed to be very tall to maximize the area of the plaza.
Well, Ewing, if my explanation for posting on 9/11blogger.com, repeated four or five times, didn't satisfy you, repeating it another time probably won't do the trick. For the record, I wanted to hear the fantasists defend the mania that grips their minds. I wanted to find out if they were saying something that rational people ought to hear. I discovered I could not achieve anything by posting occasionally and restricting myself to recommending actually reading the NIST Report. Saturation bombing, so to speak, was essential to provoke the fantasists into revealing their inner selves.
Yes, I expended time and energy, but, in the end, I managed to amass a considerable body of material. I discovered that the twoofers have nothing--no coherent narrative accounting for the events of 9/11/01, and no evidence to support any of their specific claims. Unlike some rationalists who merely know OF the fantasists, I believe I can say that I now KNOW the fantasists.
Jenny struck me as intriguing. Here is someone who is, to euphemize, extremely passionate about what she does. She is all frenzied action, to the total exclusion of thought. She hasn't the slightest idea of the implications of what she says. She couldn't begin to make a case for her absurd fantasies. She just don' need no stinkin' evidence. She is, in short, the quintessential True Believer.
The undercurrent of violence on that site simultaneously repels and fascinates me. These people share a lynch mob mentality. They would--and I don't think I'm exaggerating--literally kill Bush and Cheney for crimes these men quite obviously did not commit. That doesn't faze you, but it should.
pomeroo--you say frau sparks didn't make a case. but you know from reading blogger she says she will not debate the facts with a person who is just there to disrupt. which you admit. So, no you have not discovered anything but that angering people makes them not want to talk with you.
but perhaps you can make your case clearer now by giving a link to an example of what you think happened? otherwise i believe you need to take a step back like i did and see how you are discrediting your side with your actions.
Ewing, you make certain assumptions that are unsupported by the evidence. I did keep a file of my posts on 911blogger.com. You sound as though I spent all my time calling names. I purposely escalated the level of ad hominem attack I'd permit myself very gradually. That is not a matter of opinion: you can check the relevant threads. I began by employing no insulting language whatever. As the abuse hurled at me increased in volume and intensity, I started responding in kind. Again, don't take my word for it--see for yourself. You imagine that I can discredit the rationalist case by speaking honestly and presenting accurate information? I purposely stressed certain key points over and over. Examine the entire thread dealing with that odious painting of the ghosts of firemen haunting Bush. Tell me what I wrote that isn't true. Show me a single fact-based argument the regulars used against me. I invite anyone to check the record.
if you purposefully attack people then you can not claim you are doing good. everyone knows people will be angry if you attack them. this is nothing new.
you ask me to show where you wrote that was not true. so here it is:
"You are not providing a valid e-mail address. Surely you get the idea by now?"
http://www.911blogger.com/node/5425#comment-107430
i have much practice with links! and the frau says:
"It is a valid email address"
but i understand we may not believe her. so i go here to jref:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2278007&postcount=28
and read:
"Jenny Sparks has contacted me regarding her forum registration. Her denial to the forum had nothing to do with her email address."
so you are wrong to say she was not providing a valid email. but you cannot admit this simple thing; do you see how this takes away your credability? perhaps not with 911 facts but with your ability to discuss effectively with people?
you were obscessed for days. this affected your judgment. this is not normal for even just curious people. please, for your health, get help like I have. and consider it a blessing in disguise you were banned as you had lost self control.
Ewing, you continue to write very silly stuff. I suggested, based on what JREFers were writing, that the cause of Jenny's registration difficulties were most likely related to the e-mail address she was submitting. It is extremely easy to post on JREF. When she said, or implied (who the hell remembers?), that fear of her devastating arguments and her uncommon brilliance was preventing her from registering, I smelled a rat. If Lisa Simpson states that Jenny's problems were due to something other than an e-mail address, then it must be so. The fact that Jenny chose not to resolve those problems confirms my suspicion that she realizes that she'd be in way over her head trying to peddle thoroughly debunked nonsense to such a super-savvy group. Rest assured that any registration problems she was experiencing could have been overcome with little effort.
I'm not the ultimate authority on registration procedures at JREF. I know that it's quite simple, so simple that a great many conspiracy liars manage to do it. So, what am I supposed to admit? Jenny says she tried to register; Lisa Simpson says her e-mail address is not the reason for her inability to do so. Okay,then something else is stopping her. It's not something insurmountable. In fact, it's almost certainly something trivial. You act as though you're making some sort of point when, in reality, you don't have one. Jenny never had the slightest intention of parading her ignorance in a forum populated by real scientists and engineers.
You seem to live in a dream world. I have no obsession with the pathetic souls at 911blogger.com., and my judgment is fine, thank you.
Perhaps you recall the technique I employed to send Andrew Lowe-Watson running for the hills? I simply pinned him down and demanded that he respond to specific questions. There is no way to expose an elusive fraud unless you're willing to sink your teeth into him and hang on, like a dog with a bone. Andrew loves to hit and run. He asked me what it would take to change my mind about the myths promoted by the fantasists. I told him. And then I told him again. And again. He kept dodging and I kept reminding him. Eventually, everyone got the idea, although they lack the integrity to acknowledge it, that he was never going to uphold his end of the arrangement.
Why it took so long for the Stalinists in charge to ban me remains a mystery. Freedom of speech is not something ignorant fanatics respect. I had gathered all the material I needed and felt that I was repeating myself. Clearly, it was time to go. I finally had to push Gold's buttons to get myself banned, as leaving of my own accord wouldn't work. My detractors would have accused me of cowardice.
I'm not sure what sort of psychological help you required, but I sincerely wish you well. Why not add a few books on critical thinking, particularly 'How to Think Straight,' by Antony Flew and 'Dumbth,' by Steve Allen, to your recovery regimen? Albert Ellis was right, in my opinion, in maintaining that many common emotional problems have their roots in faulty thinking. Check out 'A Guide to Rational Living.'
you were wrong to say frau's email address was invalid. you cannot admit this, you loose credibility. you do not have to guess all what she said. i gave you links. are they wrong(the links)?
watson you know has little credibity with other 911bloggers for the same reasons you have none. both of you are obsessed and cannot think straight when you talk. think about how you say this: you call them stalinists but they took so long to ban you. this is not the action of a stalinist. this is very tolerant, giving you lots of rope. you have no one to blame but yourself for banning.
i too am to blame for my banning. i thought emailing kindred spirits to blog all at once on certain topics per day was a good idea. but it was not. it was disruptive and smothered other better ideas.
much of what you say sounds like trying to save face. you will not admit small simple mistakes no one would hold against you for admitting. you make people angry on purpose and try to show how this makes them fanatics, but anyone you did that to would be angry. and it is not normal to spend full work days posting with people you do not like. where do you find time? this can only be obsession.
i hope things are better for you in your life. you do not sound like a happy man.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ewing, you still labor under the misconception that I'm particularly knowledgeable about the registration procedures at JREF. I know that registering is easy. I know that all sorts of conspiracy types regularly manage to do it.
I got the idea that Jenny must have submitted an invalid address when that explanation was suggested by JREF members who have been posting there longer than I have. You claim that I was "wrong," but you can't seem to understand that I have no inside information. My opinion was based entirely on what other people said. Lisa Simpson has stated that the e-mail address was not the problem. So, that settles the question. I still don't have the slightest idea of what could stop Jenny from posting if she wanted to. She doesn't.
On the subject of banning, I can only repeat that I was--and continue to be--astonished that they let me post for so long. They never did give any explanation for the banning. They simply pulled the plug when Gold was starting to look silly. I was thoroughly tired of going around in circles, but I had left myself with no convenient way out. By the way, I enjoy calling Gold a Stalinist. He gives the impression of not believing a word of the preposterous tinfoil-hat stuff. His aims are purely political, I think.
Understand that I don't regard the people at 911blogger.com, a few of whom were quite civil, as fantatics because they get angry. They are fanatics because they are wedded to crazy beliefs that they can't possibly defend and refuse to examine. I'm not a hater. I bear no ill will toward them. I just wish they'd learn to think critically, to control their emotional need to stand reality on its head.
Where did I find the time to post as often as I did right after Christmas? Well, catching a nasty virus helped. My work does not require going to an office. But, the truth is, I couldn't possibly sustain the pace I set for more than a handful of days. I didn't feel obsessed. My girlfriend, however, thinks you may have something there.
I'm reasonably happy, but thanks for expressing concern.
Pomeroo
thank you for admitting you were wrong about the fraus email. it makes you a bigger person. it was probably not wise to jump to the conclusion her email was wrong as you did not know well how registration worked...but you know that now!
hope you have recovered from your illness. i worry that you stayed sick longer by constantly posting when you should have rested! this also i see could explain some of your bad judgment there. in future do not post seriously when you are sick!
Ewing, you strike me as a decent sort. Thanks for the kind wishes, but my illness was just an upper-respiratory virus, the sort I pick up from time to time.
Actually, I finding posting on a blog rather relaxing. My purpose at 911blogger.com was to engage as many different people as possible. It became surprisingly easy to distinguish the ones who were honestly troubled by this or that aspect of 9/11 from the True Believers. The latter have no questions that haven't been answered over and over.
One poster at 911blogger.com endlessly recycles firemen's quotes, the same ones that are explained--IN CONTEXT--at debunking911.com. What can he hope to achieve? Everyone gets the idea that things explode when a building is on fire. Yes, lots of people heard copier machines, soda machines, transformers, computers, etc., blowing up. There could not possibly have been extensive fires that produced NO explosions. Apart from the absurdity of attemting to convince others that the inevitable explosions were the result of planted charges, how does he manage to deceive himself? Does he ever stop for a moment and reflect that building fires ALWAYS produce explosions?
I lose patience with people who demonstrate utter contempt for the truth. If you want to promote a theory that flies in the face of all the available evidence, it is YOUR obligation to explain why the rest of us should take it seriously. You may have an emotional need to cast America as the villain in any conflict, but why should anyone else care about that?
Incidentally, I don't find it particularly hard to admit mistakes. I often wonder why so many people do, given that mistakes are absolutely inevitable. Politicians make me laugh when they tie themselves into knots to avoid simply saying, "I misspoke," or "I was misinformed on that one." Don't they realize how silly trying to create an impression of infallibility makes them appear?
Post a Comment
<< Home