Who Gave Him the Script?
We've heard the particularly buffoonish 9-11 Deniers claim that CNN and the BBC's mistaken announcements that WTC 7 had collapsed indicated that they were given a script; we presume it won't be long before this firefighter gets charged with the same nonsense.
Hat Tip to commenter Tom for pointing this out!
posted by Pat @ 9:10 AM
104 comments
104 Comments:
Judge for yourselves:
BBC Footage
_______________
What America is fighting for in the Middle East!
God's chosen part 1
God's chosen part 2
God's chosen part 3
What is their to Judge nesnyc?
Where is Jenny btw, the other half of the comic duo?
What is their to Judge nesnyc?
BBC reported building 7 had collapsed about 20 minutes before it did. So did they talk to the firefighter there and "error" when they said it had already fallen? How did they know it had already fallen? The building is quite clearly behind the reporter as she was stating it had already fallen.
nesnyc, that day was tota chaos for every news agency. There were numerous false reports coming out that day. Like the bombing of the washington Mall. The firedepartment knew that the building would come down, it was just a matter of when.
Everyone vote! ;)
And here are the results :)
The firedepartment knew that the building would come down, it was just a matter of when.
Well, what I want to know is WHO told BBC what. Now think for a minute, by that time, on the ground, the firefighters were aware that the building would fall. Who informed BBC of this and how did the message go from "would" fall to collapsed.
As to the other reports you're referring to, they were mostly generated from false bomb threats that were being reported on an almost hourly basis. Who was doing that when the majority of the phone system was down?
Plain and simple. The people controlling the news wires had the stories pre-written to save time. The release to BBC was premature and when they realized what they had done, BBC all of a sudden had "technical" difficulties and that transmission was cut.
Ok dude, whatever makes you happy :)
Ok dude, whatever makes you happy :)
Guess it went over your head, huh? Do you even realize the importance of this? Building 7's collapse was premeditated and the pre-release of this report shows that clearly.
Sure, Nessie...
The powers that be decided to tell the media that WTC7 was gonna be blown up and the BBC read the memo too early.
Brilliant!
Or could it be that the media heard reports that WTC7 was going to fall (FDNY had been reporting that for hours) and in the midst of a chaotic day, and not knowing which building WTC7 was, reported that it had already fallen?
Nah, that's too logical.
Let's go with the "demolition memo" theory instead!
we presume it won't be long before this firefighter gets charged with the same nonsense.
Yeah, the building was going to fall but 7 was subjected to the same explosive blasts throughout the afternoon in question just like the towers. When the substructure was finally weakened enough, they "pulled" the plug and down came the building.
Yeh that really went over my head nessie.... WTC7 is only important to twoofers. The logical people care more about the people that died in WTC 1 and 2. In WTC7 no one died, because they pulled everyone out of there because they knew it would collapse.
The powers that be decided to tell the media that WTC7 was gonna be blown up and the BBC read the memo too early.
No, you're not paying attention. The story was written that the building had already collapsed and someone made an mistake and released this to CNN and BBC too early. They screwed up like "Lucky" Larry did when he said "pull it" and there were no firefighters to pull.
Tes there were firefighters to be pulled. First they got pulled from the building, after that they got pulled from the surroundings from WTC7 where they were looking for victims from the WTC 1 qnd 2 collapse.
WTC7 is only important to twoofers. The logical people care more about the people that died in WTC 1 and 2. In WTC7 no one died
You people's inability to put 2 & 2 together is absolutely astouding!! And sad at the same time.
Now think for a moment; If building 7 was purposely demolished, then towers 1 and 2 were also purposely demolished. That's why building 7 is so important.
1. No plane hit it
2. It had different design then the towers
3. it fell in a similar way and time.
4. all the concrete pulverized like the towers
5. Molten pools of metal where found there just like the towers.
It's pretty simple, really.
Tes there were firefighters to be pulled.
The firefighters decided to get out after the second tower fell. "Lucky" Larry's "pull" came in the afternoon when the firefighters were already gone.
Why would they purposely demolish a buildings thats gonna fall down anyway?
The firefighters decided to get out after the second tower fell. "Lucky" Larry's "pull" came in the afternoon when the firefighters were already gone.
Tell that to the firemen that were looking for colleagues all afternoon at the site.
While we were searching, that's when 7 World Trade Center was pretty much on fire, so after awhile, they--we left, and they pulled a lot of people out of the rubble, because they were worried about 7 coming down, so we went back up Vessey, sat by the rig, because ?we kind of sat there for a long time, because they had pulled people back, because they were worried about 7 coming down.
We sat up by the rig which was being fed by the marine unit, and there was a line from us stretched to one of the tower ladders on Vessey, which had to also pull back, too because of 7 coming down, and we just kind of stayed with the rig until 7 came down and kind of awaited orders and really didn't --you know, really didn't get any assignments. I guess they were worried about the stability of everything.
Why would they purposely demolish a buildings thats gonna fall down anyway?
Well, that's the million dollar question now is it. How did they know they were going to fall down anyway?
THINK!
The building was purposely demolished and that's why it was going to fall. It was part of the plan. They didn't decide to demolish it on the spot as that would have been impossible. They wired that building to fall weeks or months in advance of the attacks.
Most likely, flight 93 was going to hit that building and the plan was foiled when the Shanksville incident occurred. And ensuing investigation would have found the explosives in building 7 so IT HAD TO BE DESTROYED REGARDLESS.
Tell that to the firemen that were looking for colleagues all afternoon at the site.
The "site" is a bit different from building 7. THINK!
At that time there was a lot of fire going on. I think it was the Customs House was roaring. 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.
I remember being pulled off the pile like just before. It wasn't just before. It was probably an hour before 7 came down.
Q. It was about an hour before. Maybe an hour and a half.
A. I remember when 7 World Trade came down and everybody was like shell shocked. I mean this was a 47 story building. We all ran. We were like oh, my god, here we go again. It just gave us the creeps.
were worried about 7 coming down.
Just like I said, this all happened in the morning. "Lucky" Larry's "talk" to the fire chief occurred in the afternoon. Thanks for corroborating my conclusions.
OMG!
Do you quote mine on purpose or what u fucking tool??
I remember being pulled off the pile like just before. It wasn't just before. It was probably an hour before 7 came down.
The people controlling the news wires had the stories pre-written to save time.
Yes, because writing a news story that says "the bulding fell down" normally takes months.
Idiot.
Hehehehe. This guy is so daft its actually sad to read his dumb replies.
The story was written that the building had already collapsed and someone made an mistake and released this to CNN and BBC too early.
Since when does the government write stories before they blow up buildings? Why would they feel the need to tell the media that a building fell? It's that rather obvious?
They screwed up like "Lucky" Larry did when he said "pull it" and there were no firefighters to pull.
Actually there were FDNY in the area, who were indeed "pulled" back.
How did they know they were going to fall down anyway?
THINK!
Hmmmm....I'm gonna go with: "they knew cuz the bloody thing was clearly unstable."
Say, Nessie...what's your explanation for why the FDNY knew WTC7 would come down?
They claim to have seen signs that it would fall from structural damage and say they were "pulled" back from the area. You claim it was demolished with bombs and that Silverstein admitted to blowing it up.
So I suppose that could only mean the FDNY was "in on it," right?
I mean how else could they know WTC7 would fall?
Say, Nessie...what's your explanation for why the FDNY knew WTC7 would come down?
The building, like the towers before them, were being slowly demolished though the afternoon. The firefighter actually saw the damage and concluded the buildings would fall. If you're implying that I think the firefighters were "in on it" you're sadly mistaken.
Yes, because writing a news story that says "the bulding fell down" normally takes months.
Idiot.
What building? There are thousands in NYC. We need to get our "stories" right, RIGHT? I would overlook this if only 1 news channel "got it wrong." 2 is highly improbable. Morons.
The building, like the towers before them, were being slowly demolished though the afternoon. The firefighter actually saw the damage and concluded the buildings would fall. If you're implying that I think the firefighters were "in on it" you're sadly mistaken.
What did they use to slowly demolish the building nessie, and how could they when there was a big fire in there?
Since when does the government write stories before they blow up buildings?
Since when does the Government accuse Osama Bin Laden an hour after the attacks? Jeeezzz..
What did they use to slowly demolish the building nessie,
Molten pools of metal found in the basements indicate... duh..
Oh.. weeks afterwards I may add.
Indicate what?
I hope you know the difference between metal and steel btw.
Indicate what?
Definitely not diesel fuel or "trusses."
I hope you know the difference between metal and steel btw.
Yeah, both cannot be melted or weakened by oxygen poor hydrocarbon fires.
It doesn't? Why not? Please enlighten us to what really happened nessie.
The building, like the towers before them, were being slowly demolished though the afternoon.
Do explain how a building is "slowly demolished," Nessie.
The firefighter actually saw the damage and concluded the buildings would fall.
They claim to have seen the damage that resulted from the WTC towers collapsing against WTC7. They claim to have seen a chunk of the south face gouged out. Are you saying bombs did that???
If you're implying that I think the firefighters were "in on it" you're sadly mistaken.
There's no way around it, kiddo.
For example: what's your explantion for the FDNY agreeing that Silverstein meant "pull" the operation in the area?
If "pull" meant demolition then the FDNY are at least covering it up.
Molten pools of metal found in the basements indicate... duh..
Duh indeed! Explain how bombs create molten motel.
Yeah, both cannot be melted or weakened by oxygen poor hydrocarbon fires.
What oxygen poor hydrocarbon fires are you talking about?
What building? There are thousands in NYC. We need to get our "stories" right, RIGHT?
Yes, because including the name of the building in the story adds months to the process.
Idiot.
But do go on. I want to see how many stupid things you'll say trying to defend your earlier statement that a friggin' BBC story was an important part of the conspiracy.
It doesn't? Why not? Please enlighten us to what really happened nessie.
If NIST or the 911 whitewash commission can't give you straight answers about building 7, what makes you think I can? Ask "Lucky" Larry, I bet he definitely knows what happened to building 7. I'm just pointing out the obvious and clear indications it was "pulled" like "Lucky" Larry said it was.
Yes, because including the name of the building in the story adds months to the process.
Who said "months" I surely didn't. You trying to put words in my mouth?
NISt is still investigating WTC7 Nessie, so lets just wait till that report comes out, ok?
BBC story was an important part of the conspiracy.
The BBC story was an INDICATION of a conspiracy. Get your facts straight.
What oxygen poor hydrocarbon fires are you talking about?
It's the old "the color of the smoke indicates an oxygen starved fire" bit. Just another piece of ancient Twoofer lore that even Twoofers don't use anymore, but which Nessie treats as if it were a new revelation.
Maybe nesync isn't really posting again. Maybe these are just old posts that have been stuck in the queue since last year. That would explain the striking lack of new information they contain.
NISt is still investigating WTC7 Nessie, so lets just wait till that report comes out, ok?
Translation: Figuring out how to make irrefutable lies.
"the color of the smoke indicates an oxygen starved fire"
Actually, building 7's smoke was white hot indicating... Not diesel fuel either.
Nessie, that report will be looked in by i think every single civil and structural engineer in the world who work on buildings, because they want to know what happened to that building, so believe me if anything is false in that report it will be pointed out.
Here's what the caption underneath this video should say:
"Firefighter describes termite damage to building 7 shortly before it's final destruction via controlled demolition."
Who said "months" I surely didn't. You trying to put words in my mouth?
I was using exaggeration to illustrate the idiocy of your point, that the story needed to be written in advance "to save time." It's a very simple and commonly-used literary device. If any part of your brain not devoted to posting anti-Zionist web links was still functioning, you'd have understood that.
The BBC story was an INDICATION of a conspiracy. Get your facts straight.
What the hell is that supposed to mean?
If somebody wrote the story ahead of time with the intent of feeding it to the media then it is, by your own definition, part of the conspiracy.
Nessie,
What's your explantion for the FDNY agreeing that Silverstein meant "pull" the operation in the area?
What's your explantion for the FDNY claiming that "slow demolition" damage was actually caused by the falling towers?
If your version of events is at all accurate then the FDNY are at least guilty of a coverup.
There's simply no way around it.
"Firefighter describes termite damage to building 7 shortly before it's final destruction via controlled demolition."
That's it! WTC7 was destroyed by Termites!
That explains everything! The missing pieces of the bottom 20 floors, the structural instability, the lack of explosions... my God people, we're through the looking glass now. Alert Dylan Avery.
Finally, we know why all the investigations found no evidence of explosives, despite it being common knowledge that the WTC destruction was controlled demolition. Obviously, the termites ate all the evidence. Prove that they didn't!
And guess what I learned about termites from five seconds of Googling? There's a type of termite called the Formosa Termite. It only came to the United States after World War II ended, traveling in planes bringing supplies back from war sites in Asia. Convenient, huh?
Why would the NWO choose the Formosa termite? First of all, the Formosa termite is native to southeast Asia, and having something from southeast Asia in America would undoubtedly serve as a psychological reminder of the failure of the Vietnam War. Now I'm sure all you debunks are thinking the Vietnam War hadn't happened yet; but clearly, it was planned to.
Second, there's an Internet law called Formosa's Law which says "The truly insane have enough on their plates without us adding to it." You see, the NWO knew that anyone questioning the Official Story would be seen as crazies, so they chose the Formosa Termite to remind people to dismiss them as insane, thus preventing the real story from being discovered.
I ask you, how could the NWO have foreseen that this termite would share a name with a law pertaining to an information system that wouldn't exist for 60 years? Come on people, this stuff has all been planned since the days of the Knights Templar! Open your eyes! Don't be sheeple! Start getting your news from Prison Planet! THINK!
Clearly, we can only draw one conclusion: all of 20th century Western history is a false flag black op COINTELPRO Mossad disinfo conspiracy to place the termites that destroyed the World Trade Center. And it's all the Jews' fault.
Talking sense to people like nstink serves as much purpose as licking a bald man's head to solve algebraic equations.
This sounds a lot like nstink
The Scientific Approach
Here's a Truther who decided to test
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2006/04/wings-break-off.html
What happens when a 767 flies into a 110-story building. Of course, he didn't have a 767 or a 110-story building, so he improvised:
I set up an experiment testing how a plane might break up upon impacting arrayed steel columns like the WTC wall. The plane and the columns were both constructed of similar pieces of wood (which here favors the plane, since in real life, aluminum is weaker than steel). The dimensions of the models were not perfect, but they were a rough match for the WTC and a 767. I did not put floors into the model, so this also favors the plane.
I pushed the plane forcefully into the "wall", and while the fuselage penetrated the wall after reasonably strong force was applied, the wings broke off at the root where the wings met the plane. The wings actually bent backwards and slid into the hole alongside the fuselage. The wood of the wings actually broke. A few "columns" broke where the fuselage went in, and a couple broke on either side of the fuselage hole, where the wings broke off-- but basically the array of columns were much stronger than the long wings.
Well, I mean, that proves it. But our intrepid researcher was not satisfied and so he decided to try even stronger wings
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2006/04/stronger-wings.html
The wings did not break, but I COULD NOT RAM THE PLANE THROUGH THE WALL of columns, even using all my strength. Only after repeated ramming attempts was I able to get the plane inside, and even then it went in sort of sideways, without the wings breaking any extra columns.
Sadly, the experimenter did not include photos of his efforts. But this gentleman has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the holes in the World Trade Center were not made by an airplane.
Well if the buildings were secretly made of wood then that would explain how they were brought down be termites! It's all falling in to place...
If NIST or the 911 whitewash commission can't give you straight answers about building 7, what makes you think I can?
You seem to think you can.
Termites!
Typo fool. You know what I meant.
as licking a bald man's head to solve algebraic equations.
I hope you have your leather and gag ball when engaging in these activities. :D
You seem to think you can.
No, I can't. The evidence speaks for itself.
Typo fool. You know what I meant.
This from a guy who said "don't put words in my mouth" when I used a simple exaggeration.
For the record, the damage to the under structure of building 7 and the resulting molten metal found weeks after point to explosives and THERMite being used to destroy this building.
NIST will try and tell you the "trusses" gave way because of the substation gave the building a unique design. What they won't tell you is that this building was over engineered BECAUSE of this substation and in no way could have fallen from the damaged [corner], weakened "trusses" or diesel fuel damage like they will claim.
This from a guy who said "don't put words in my mouth" when I used a simple exaggeration.
You guys have a lot more typos, run ons, unfocused arguments and pathetic "humor" and I don't seem to point that out at every step. Get over yourselves!
You guys have a lot more typos, run ons, unfocused arguments and pathetic "humor" and I don't seem to point that out at every step.
I'm not accusing you of having imperfect grammar. I'm accusing you of trying to hide behind semantics when I called you on your pathologically stupid "the news stories were pre-written to save time" statement.
But you'll just keep running. You won't give me a real answer, since you seem to have caught on that defending this position makes you look like an idiot. You'll keep nitpicking me over semantics until I get bored with you, a process that is about 70% complete. Then in some future thread you'll raise the point again, as if it were new and unchallenged. You'll do anything to hold on to the fantasy world you live in.
No, I can't. The evidence speaks for itself.
Shame you're not listening.
Termites!
Typo fool. You know what I meant.
It makes as much sense as anything else you come out with.
Hey nstink
Prove there was thermite in #7
There was never a report on #7 that said molten steel, if so show us
Explain the process for useing thermite in building demolition
There has never been thermite used in building demolition, nor has there ever been molten metal of any kind. You have yet to back up anything you have claimed.
Show us the proof or shut your stinking pie hole
Magical zionist thermite melts metal and brings down building.
Nessie,
- What's your explantion for the FDNY agreeing that Silverstein meant "pull" the operation in the area?
- What's your explantion for the FDNY claiming that "slow demolition" damage was actually caused by the falling towers?
C'mon son, don't wimp out on me now.
And don't feel bad if you find yourself unable to add up the evidence without implicating the FDNY.
It's a problem that no twoofer has been able to solve.
Interesting OP. I wonder what Rosie O thinks of this guy.
Oh, Pat or Jim, do you get paid any money based on the number of comments to a given OP? If so, I think you should hire Nessie.
Since he has been back, I think every OP has at least 30 replies within 24h of posting...lol
TAM:)
I think I can field those for him.
- What's your explantion for the FDNY agreeing that Silverstein meant "pull" the operation in the area?
Jews.
- What's your explantion for the FDNY claiming that "slow demolition" damage was actually caused by the falling towers?
JEWS.
Debunk logic:
We accept this guy's comments on WTC 7, but deny all the other comments about explosives, bombs, etc in the WTC complex by other firefighters.
Not only that, this guy isn't a structural engineer for gawd's sake so no more appeal to authority here, ok!
This comment has been removed by the author.
Debunk logic:
We accept this guy's comments on WTC 7, but deny all the other comments about explosives, bombs, etc in the WTC complex by other firefighters.
Uh because the guy's comments on WTC7 hold up to the physical evidence.
Also, no one ever found a bomb, they just said "sounded like" and other such similes and metaphors.
Would you be able to tell the difference between a transformer blowing and a bomb going off? You have a lot of experience with either?
Denier logic:
Erect strawman, knock over. Win.
Hey Swing, how about you find a fireman that still thinks there may have been explosives.
Jay has all the transcripts here for all to see. The whaks just like to spin, twist and take things out of context, now there is proof for all to see that the whaks are just liers as we all know.
http://jay-911.blogspot.com/
Debunk logic:
We accept this guy's comments on WTC 7, but deny all the other comments about explosives, bombs, etc in the WTC complex by other firefighters.
No debunker has ever said there weren't explosions inside the WTC. Things explode inside burning buildings. Firefighters reporting explosions inside the WTC is to be expected considering there was a fire inside the building at the time.
It is in fact the truthers who ignore the firefighters when it is convenient for them to do so.
Swing,
how goes the engineer hunt?
Swing Dangler, I've given you a structural engineers perspective of the collapse. What more do you want from the profession?
He wants you to lie and say 9/11 was an inside job...but with big words.
TAM;)
Transformers?? I liked the pop can excuse better!
Why would NYC refuse to release the firefighter's statements except as a result of a court order if it were transformers and pop cans? The one mention of transformer is in the first response from one firefigther. But you want to use that excuse to explain the over 180 individuals that thought it was ED, bombs, etc.
Actually TAM, I don't want anyone to say anything one way or another. In fact, I don't need anyone to say it was an inside job. It would be nice to see people acknowledge the evidence instead of excuse the evidence or to lie about the evidence.
Two, I'm referring to the basement explosions that wasn't from jet fuel.
Newton (I thought you said you weren't a SE but just worked with a few), I would like an industry consideration of the physical evidence in the sublevels of an explosive device being used to assist in the destruction of the twin towers.
A device that reminded victims of the first bombing in 1993. An event whose evidence does not match one iota of 'jet fuel' in the basement bs. I would also like to know why the NIST didn't consider the evidence in this scenario or those who wanted to testify about the event to the 9/11 Commission.
Unless you addressed that and I missed it, that is what I would like to see.
Swing, thanks for the update.
CHF, out of 10 firms I have contacted so far they stated they supported the NIST version of the events.
0-of-10, huh? I'm stunned.
None of them were aware of the explosive devices that were detonated in the sub-levels.
Probably cuz there were no explosives in the sub levels.
Try explaining to them the logic of basement bombs in a top-down collapse that leaves core supports standing for a few seconds after the collapse.
The whole theory is so fucking idiotic that I can't believe anyone would even present it.
The Basement bomb theory is just another thing taken out of context to try and support the toofers theories
I would like an industry consideration
Gee, you don't want much, do you? Just an entire industry of highly-paid engineers to drop important real-world projects and do a pro bono investigation of your asinine conspiracy theory, which you'll just disregard anyway when it doesn't tell you what you want to hear. Get over yourself.
I should inform you that various groups of engineers with relevant work experience have already done an "industry consideration" of the controlled demolition theory, and found no evidence to support it. One is the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The other is a long-running magazine called Popular Mechanics. Perhaps you've heard of them?
If you think Swing Dangler will claim these reports have been "debunked", turn to page 4.
If you think he'll post to links of people saying they heard explosions, turn to page 36.
If you think he'll say these reports were influenced by the Bush administration, turn to page 54.
If you think he'll claim the explosion story is corroborated by some nameless friend of his, turn to the next page.
Come on Guys... nesnyc and Swing serve a purpose.
I got invloved in the truther debunking thing because of a friend who unfortunately started to buy info the 911 Truth scam.
Luckily I was able to talk some logic into him and he now says he kind of ignores the entire subject. But there are time I feel it necessary to drive the point home a little bit, and this is where Swing and nesnyc do the job so well.
I just point to these guy and say "see this is the mind of a truther, fuzzy logic, uninformed, your general all purpose moron" and Nazis to boot, what more could you want as an example of "don't let this happen to you"
So carry on the idiocy.
Even their avatars show a lack of maturity.
A dictator with bad taste in jackets, and a character from a second rate movie.
You can hear Swing now saying "But DUDE V was so AWESOME!"
A dictator with bad taste in jackets, and a character from a second rate movie.
And Ahmadinejad always reminds me of Adrian Zmed, which would make them two characters from second-rate movies. (Grease 2 of course, not Bachelor Party, which was hysterical.)
And "V for Vendetta" seems to be a favorite of the fringe wacko set. As evidence I offer this little shenanigan, in which a bunch of "there is no law requiring me to pay taxes" morons put on V for Vendetta masks and wandered around D.C. for a few hours, thinking this would force the government to answer their "unanswered" questions about the tax laws.
Twoofers often deny affiliation with other fruitcake groups, but the similarity of method gives it away.
Hell, I was about to make this point on another thread, in which yet another '9/11 citizens court' was scheduled. That's another favorite tactic of anti-government conspiracy militia types: setting up their own courts and declaring meaningless judgments. Though I suppose it's good theater for the true believers.
CHF said...
Swing,
how goes the engineer hunt?
Maybe he can have a look here.
http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/
But o w8, they dont buy into those crap stories from truthers. Damn, have to start looking for yourself then SD
>>>Civilized Worm said...
I think I can field those for him.
- What's your explantion for the FDNY agreeing that Silverstein meant "pull" the operation in the area?
Jews.
- What's your explantion for the FDNY claiming that "slow demolition" damage was actually caused by the falling towers?
JEWS. <<<
It's a little vague, but what you imply is still worth a couple of links:
http://www.rense.com/general42/bshnazi.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html
Now remember, as Pat says, spam is a privilege. Where is Nico these days, anyway?
BTW--unless I have a team, I'm a solo act. ;-)
Again with Rense.com!
Not smart, Jenny.
Don't wet yourself, CHF--it's just part of the list you get when you search for Prescott Bush Nazis.
Here's some more:
http://www.tarpley.net/bush2.htm
http://www.romm.org/prescott.html
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2003_08_31_dneiwert_archive.html
(Jenny highly recomends orcinus)
And to just help you out with your logical flacid--I'm sorry, "fallacy" problem--just because someone you don't like says "the grass is green" doesn't make it NOT green.
;-P
Yeah and just because someone's related to a nazi doesn't make them a nazi.
You can hear Swing now saying "But DUDE V was so AWESOME!"
To be fair Alan Moore's graphic novel is brilliant, the movie does suck balls though.
I think we have a break through:
"Yeah and just because someone's related to a nazi doesn't make them a nazi."
So you admit Prescott Bush was a Nazi. So what about his son--who benefited from the aforementioned profiteering AND you still has influence in the current administration?
Has the familly ever admitted or regected that ideology? If not you can bet it's still active in some way, shape or form.
Want more links? Pat says spam is a privilege...
I'll lay off for now.
God only knows why Jenny's beating the Prescot Bush drum so loudly.
I didn't say I liked Bush or his grandfather.
So what's the point of all this?
Could it be to distract attention from her defence of that vile creature named Nesnyc?
Nah!!!
She's probably been listening to Alex Jones. George Bush is related to Dracula!
CHF, you left out the none of them had read the NIST report part in your response? Any reason why?
The NIST didn't see evidence that didn't fit their preconceived ideas.
Point being they ignored anyone who wanted to testify to them about the Sublevel B explosion. Ignore or deny it, but it doesn't change the fact. This in turn means they did not consider all of the evidence in the collapse. Of course this leads to a "lack of fireproofing" brought the buildings down.
Probably cuz there were no explosives in the sub levels.
Make sure you inform the victims who suffered the results of those explosions that there were not explosives, that they are all on meds, and they were completely wrong because the NIST says they are or better yet they were ignored by the NIST. And be sure to tell them it was pop cans that injured them.
I should inform you that various groups of engineers with relevant work experience have already done an "industry consideration" of the controlled demolition theory, and found no evidence to support it. They didn't find any evidence? WTF are you talking about? They didn't LOOK for evidence. If they had, they would have interviewed the victims from the sub-levels. They would have listened to firefighters, policemen and first responders. They would have analysed sound recordings for the detail signatures of explosives, they would have done a through chemical analysis of the steel if there were enough left to test, they would have viewed the videotape and audio tapes.
How many Pop's engineers were the same engineers from the NIST? Didn't Pop use the NIST report as part of their own report? Isn't that a bit redundant? So what we are left is a report. A report that models interior fire damage of floors without collapse. A report that relies on computer models with manipulated data to justify collapse because real world experiments just didn't get it done. And instead of vast structural engineering designs to prevent future global collapse we get: more fireproofing! Genius!
So how many high rise structures around the globe have taken this analysis and began to improve and add fireproofing to their existing structure to prevent global collapse from fire ever happening again?
Just curious if there was a broad spectrum of engineers used in the analysis.
I'm sure you can find that or were the same folks rehashed from other projects?
Traditional or un-traditional demolition you can argue whatever, you can't change the historical record of the day regarding explosives in the sublevels.
I'm sure Mark L. will help you understand why the terrorists would attack the sublevels specifically surrounding the core, to help bring the towers down of course.
Or please tell me how concrete walls, 5 ton presses, etc in sub level B are destroyed by pop cans, transformers, or bodies hitting the street, or jet fuel without FF response, or whatever the next fradulent excuse you use.
The Basement bomb theory
Please show me where that was taken out of context? No theory, only fact. The theory becomes a theory when you delve into how it got there, who placed it there, etc, etc.
Shawn
Would you be able to tell the difference between a transformer blowing and a bomb going off?
Me. Not sure, I've never experienced it.
Firefighters, yep. Do you have any proof transformers were the cause of that sound?
So terrorists are now in the habit of leaving bombs around to prove that they used bombs? Oookkk dokie, whatever you say.
So I guess that means you support the 'inside job' of OKC because they found additional devices attached to core collums in that building? Welcome to the truth! ROLFMAO.
By the way truthy, what the hell is that eye from anyway?
SLC: where fact is fiction and fiction is fact and appeal to authority is your only defense.
Swing,
Have most engineers read all 10,000 pages? Of course not. But they are indeed familiar with NIST's basic conclusion.
The concept of basement bombs in a top-down collapse is so stupid on so many levels that I'm amazed you keep at it.
Core beams stood up for a few seconds after the collapse. So what exactly was the point of a basement bomb then? Did they set it off for nothing?
Make sure you inform the victims who suffered the results of those explosions that there were not explosives
Do they have shrapnal wounds? Blast injuries? Or were they burned? Do tell.
And why is it that so few people seem to have heard this "explosive" which weakened the core?
How many people do you think heard that 1993 truck bomb? 3 or 4???
As usual you are completely ignorant as to how powerful and loud demolition charges are.
They didn't find any evidence? WTF are you talking about? They didn't LOOK for evidence.
And you're currently showing them that "evidence." Still isn't working, is it?
They would have listened to firefighters, policemen and first responders.
Show me a firefighter or cop who says the WTC was taken down with bombs.
I don't want a bunch of people using similies or giving their initial feelings in the heat of the momment - I want names of FDNY/NYPD who currently buy your bomb theory.
Oh wait...am I gonna have to find you contact info for them to?
They didn't find any evidence? WTF are you talking about? They didn't LOOK for evidence.
Jesus H. Christ. How willfully ignorant can you possibly be?
NIST: "In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001."
Now how do you figure they concluded there was no evidence if they didn't look for it, Brainiac? You're clutching at straws.
Didn't Pop use the NIST report as part of their own report? Isn't that a bit redundant? So what we are left is a report.
Hey, there's a new fallacy: "A is part of B, therefore A doesn't exist." Or maybe B doesn't exist, you're a bit unclear. I hereby christen this new fallacy "Swing Dangler's Gambit." Alert Wikipedia.
The rest of it is just more naked assertions, more strawmen, and more discredited claims that I've seen out of you a hundred times. Like the five-ton press. I seem to recall someone trying to explain to you that the press in question didn't weigh five tons, it produced five tons of pressure. I don't know which is true, but it does betray your unwillingness to acknowledge counterpoints that have been raised.
They would have listened to firefighters, policemen and first responders. They would have analysed sound recordings for the detail signatures of explosives, they would have viewed the videotape and audio tapes.
Hey kids, if you guessed He'll post to links of people saying they heard explosions, you win!
Thank you for reading Choose-Your-Own-Conspiracy books: where the most complex situations in life only have two or three possible responses.
So terrorists are now in the habit of leaving bombs around to prove that they used bombs?
You idiots don't seem to get that the onus is on YOU to prove there were bombs, we don't have to disprove a thing.
This is how it works:
Plane hits a building, spilling fuel all over the place, going down elevator shafts and destroyed all sorts of things in its path. It also ignites flammables which (gasp) explode! Causing (gasp) explosions! People hear these explosions.
Your stance is "let's ignore this perfectly logic version and believe in bombs when I have no other evidence besides explosions, which are easily explained by the version you just gave".
Probably cuz there were no explosives in the sub levels.
Make sure you inform the victims who suffered the results of those explosions that there were not explosives
Who claims to have been injured by explosives?
When you start the steel frame collapse BS, you first have to name one building that is built like the towers, if you can't find one then nothing else applies. There are no benchmarks to cover any of these crashes so all bets are off and we must start from scratch.
The buildings moved some 10' or so, coupled with the explosion from the initial hit, could have tossed a few things around. I live in EQ country and was 1 mi from the epicenter of the NR quake, we did not move 10' but everything standing was tossed to the floor. I know the forces are different but a rapid 10' shife on a building that size could have moved all sorts of things.
sd=lies and BS
Make sure you inform the victims who suffered the results of those explosions that there were not explosives, that they are all on meds, and they were completely wrong because the NIST says they are or better yet they were ignored by the NIST. And be sure to tell them it was pop cans that injured them.
They interviewed hundreds of people that were in the buiding during the attack from almost every floor, inclding the basement. They also interviewed over a 100 firefighters. Just look at NCSTAR 1.7 and 1.8.
5 ton press? One of my professors in college had a materials testing machine (an MDS if you know what it is) that delivered 50 tons of force. It's about half the size of my bedroom. One of the local concrete manufacturers here has a machine for testing concrete test cylinders and has a machine that likewise produces 50 tons of force, however it's the size of a very large microwave.
So I'm not sure what that's all about. If you post information and links to these sources swing_dangler, maybe we can analyze them for you. But just saying that they exist isn't going to help us out.
Jenny - Here's the word on Prescot Bush from frontpagemag.com:
These stories had circulated for years but resurfaced on May 13, 2003, in the Cuban Communist Party newspaper Granma, headlined, "Bush Family Funded Adolf Hitler." As the Associated Press reports, Prescott had been on the board of Union Banking Corp., whose majority owner, the Thyssen family of Germany, indeed had funded the Nazis against a feared communist takeover of Germany in the 1920s and 1930s. Family leader Fritz Thyssen broke with Hitler over the 1938 Kristallnacht pogrom against the Jews, was stripped of his citizenship and fortune, and was in a Nazi prison at the time the elder Bush sat on that board. There is no evidence that Prescott Bush, who owned just one share of Union Banking, had anything to do with the Thyssen political work in Germany.
Some critics go even further to accuse the president of having inherited ill-gotten profits from a Nazi slave-labor operation near the Auschwitz death camp in Poland. But the Polish company in which Prescott Bush had an interest, Silesian-American Corp., was stolen by the Nazis in 1939, the year before Auschwitz was built. Discussing this controversy, columnist Joe Conason of the New York Observer writes, "Henry Ford was a Nazi collaborator. Joseph P. Kennedy Sr. was a Nazi sympathizer. Unless additional information emerges to indict him, Prescott Bush Sr. was neither. To misuse such terms for political advantage against his grandson is to trivialize very grave offenses."
And yes... before any twoofers point it out... I am fully aware that frontpagemag is run by a jew.
Wow! A talking "oil rag"! Who'd have known?
I'll try to break this gently "sword of troof"--you're a pawn, not a player. And the field has just moved. I don't need to come back here anymore to make my point. I've found a better place.
So, a general caution--everyone might want to stop LYING about 911acivists being Nazis or tolerrating Holocaust denial--and I don't care if it's the players or the pawns.
What happens now is up to you lot.
Jenny's done here-cheery bye.
You have my solemn promise that I will never say anything but the gods honest truth about twoofers being nazis.
Post a Comment
<< Home