Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ColtCabana

    ColtCabana Active Member

    gerrycan, how do you respond to this letter from FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro;

    Are you implying that you know more about what happened on 9/11, as well as the logistics surrounding WTC7, than Nigro?
     
  2. gerrycan

    gerrycan Active Member

    He stated - "That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail."
    I agree, it should, however it doesn't. Also
    "1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse"
    NIST never actually addressed the collapse of the towers. He continues,
    "2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7."
    Yes, that's true, but NIST said that this did not contribute to the collapse of WTC7. They had to, seeing as it collapsed so evenly.Nigro continues,
    "4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them."
    Fire moves every 20-30 minutes through a building, and the fires were long since burned out at floor 12 by the time of the collapse.

    "3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels." Nonsense, look at the structural drawings, Nigro had not done so at this point.

    You then ask "Are you implying that you know more about what happened on 9/11, as well as the logistics surrounding WTC7, than Nigro?"

    Not on the logistics no, but as to what happened to WTC7 on 911, I am not implying that i know more than he does, I am saying it very overtly and clearly. Yes.
     
  3. ColtCabana

    ColtCabana Active Member

    So, the government/Illuminati/New World Order/j00z/random buzzword, could orchestrate this massive attack, but couldn't throw together an explanation? Why would they allow themselves to go through with a plain that has so many gapping holes? Does the following conversation make sense?

    Me: Hey, I've got a great idea. We're going to rob a bank together right now.

    You: Ok, which bank and how are we going to do it?

    Me: Don't worry about that. Not important. Wanna do it?

    You: Sure!

    Actually, WTC7 was very much infested with fire. Here are some FDNY oral transcripts to the New York Times.. I would like to point out some particular quotes;

    FDNY Chief Medical Officer Kerry Kelly - "Then we had to move because the Duane Rease, they said, wasn't safe because building seven was really roaring."

    Firefighter Marcel Klaes "All morning I was watching 7 World Trade burn."

    FDNY Lieutenant Robert Larocco - "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."

    Firefighter Vincent Massa - "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."

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

    Should I provide some more quotes?

    So, Nigro is obviously lying then, right? This is where conspiracy theorists prove their arrogance; they think because they saw a few YouTube videos, that they are more qualified to know what happened than the people that, you know, were actually there. It's so cute to see conspiracy theorists dance around outright calling the FDNY liars, when in fact, you're saying through implication that they are.

    If you believe WTC7 was taken down by controlled demolition or some government conspiracy, then be a man and call out the FDNY for being liars or incompetent at their jobs.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. gerrycan

    gerrycan Active Member

    Sorry, not engaging in this.....Not why i came here.
     
  5. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    No need. Just supply some visual evidence to back that up because all the visual evidence so far disagrees completely with those quotes.

    Maybe they are. There are many observations from fire fighters which differ greatly and talk about small fires, easily put out and also explosions and bombs going off etc ... but as usual, according to debunkers, 'those accounts are unreliable witnesses and must be wrong'. So you don't really seem to have much of a problem 'calling out FDNY, who do not support the 'Official Story'.

    Have you looked at the firefighter 9/11 truth movement?

     
  6. ColtCabana

    ColtCabana Active Member

    Awesome, thanks Mick!

    I wish this letter from Nigro would go viral against conspiracy the
    Obviously, we're not going to get good visuals of WTC7 on fire. The only people allowed close enough to the buildings were the FDNY and they had much more important things to do that day then take pictures. Also, just because fires aren't raging near the windows, doesn't mean they weren't raging inside the building. The large amount of smoke, however, is evidence that fires were taking over the building which would confirm what the FDNY said.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Also, triforcharity on the JREF forums addressed Erik Lawyer.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 16, 2014
  7. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    Can you circle the flames engulfing the building as I can't see them? This is the building that is "fully involved in fire on all floors", is it?

    I have a strange feeling that much of the picture is the pyroclastic flow which resulted from the collapse of WTC1. That is one of the problems with snapshots, they can be misleading.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 16, 2014
  8. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    These builders... they are soooo forgetful nowadays. :oops:
     
  9. ColtCabana

    ColtCabana Active Member

    Smoke coming from WTC7



    Again, the FDNY reported fires on almost every floor. Just because they aren't raging out of the windows, doesn't mean they aren't raging in other areas of the complex.

    The FDNY was privy to angles and access to WTC7 on 9/11 that you, me, nor the media were allowed to. If you want to call them liars, maybe take it up with them directly?
     
  10. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    Smoke coming from a small bonfire.

    [​IMG]

    Flames from a roaring bonfire

    [​IMG]

    Which one do you think is the hottest?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  11. ColtCabana

    ColtCabana Active Member

    This is getting off topic. This thread is dedicated to Nigro's letter, not bonfires. Truther tactics of changing the subject strike again!
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Gazmik

    Gazmik New Member

    Because obviously the only thing fueling fires in an occupied office building must be jet fuel. Ignore all the fixtures, furniture, office equipment and paper in a cubicle farm that would continue burning long after the jet fuel burned out.

    That statement might be relevant in an empty structure.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    I am simply demonstrating the difference between Nigro's account of a fiery inferno engulfing the entire WTC 7 building and the visual evidence, (not to even mention the NIST, report which talks of small localised office fires which burned for only around 20 minutes before running out of fuel); and the lack of visual evidence for those fires, other than smoke, which whilst it is agreed 'there is no smoke without fire', would indicate the fires to be small and lacking in oxygen ... ergo relatively low temperature.
     
  14. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    Talking about WTC 7 here... no jet fuel. Not only that, the jet fuel in 1 & 2 burned off mostly in big fireballs
     
  15. Gazmik

    Gazmik New Member

    Yeah. Because WTC 7 had tanks of diesel fuel for the generators in the building. No jet fuel.
     
  16. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    Didn't want to answer that question then, I wonder why?
     
  17. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    Which were intact and recovered and NIST said 'did not contribute to the fires'. Don't worry though, lots of people believe what you did because it was put forward as a reason for the collapse until it was proven false but the correction was not largely circulated and indeed some debunking sites, (not this one), still put that false argument out to justify the collapse of 7.
     
  18. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Moderator Staff Member

    OMFG.
    dust cloud.
    You're shameless.


    (read the rest here... http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html )
     
    • Like Like x 3
  19. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    :) Not as shameless as some though... Bush, Cheyne, Obama, Kerry.... etc
    Yep, fair enough, there appears to be a lot of smoke coming from one side of the building but that does not constitute Nigro's account of "Engulfed in flames on all floors", does it?
     
  20. JRBids

    JRBids Senior Member

    What does that mean? Fire moves every 20-30 minutes through a building?
     
  21. Boston

    Boston Active Member

    office fires ebb and flow through the combustibles, they don't all ignite at once, so the area of greatest intensity is kinda like a living animal in that it follows its food/fuel source through the structure, often backing itself into a corner and failing to burn out an the entire area, kinda like the Yellowstone fires spot burned through the park way back when. There are lots of variables, and fire doors tend to play a major role, particularly in a large structure like bldg 7
     
    • Like Like x 1
  22. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

  23. ColtCabana

    ColtCabana Active Member

    There is a difference between "reason" and "hypothesis."

    Also, oxy, could you kindly provide a narrative for WTC7 and it's collapse? How and why did it happen.
     
  24. Grieves

    Grieves Senior Member

    I'm going to point out this "Please invent a scenario so I can ridicule it" dodge every time I see it used from now on. Establishing that NIST was flawed and the 9/11 commission a failure should be all that's required to call for a new investigation, regardless of what people might believe about alternate scenarios, involving explosives or otherwise. The whole "well can you explain precisely how an explosives scenario works and precisely who was involved? No? Then nothing's wrong!" argument is ridiculous.
    Quite apparently the holes aren't all that gaping, as you clearly can't see through them.

    No, this doesn't make any sense within the context of the conversation.



    He didn't call anyone a liar, just pointed out a contradiction, as well as the fact that the man was speaking predicatively about a report that had not yet been filed, and about which his assumptions were incorrect. Tell me, where is your fervent drive to defend the honor of firefighters when debunkers are referring to those who witnessed/physically experienced explosions as confused, traumatized beyond proper comprehension, or dishonest/attention seeking?

    P.S Mick, lots of "Error 522"s atm.
     
  25. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Data center seemed to be having problems. Seems fixed now. Linode has been under DDOS for a few days.
     
  26. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I don't think it should be used when addressing a focussed claim, like pointing out particular holes in the official story.

    But if you don't present an alternative, then the hypothesis still remains the official story, with those problem bits of evidence removed. So sure you can say "I'm just saying....", but at some point you might actually want to say something other than "the official story has holes in it".

    Anyway, bit meta.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  27. Boston

    Boston Active Member

    Mick, I don't feel in any way responsible to know a correct answer, even if I know what an incorrect answer is, and can define why that answer is incorrect. Think of it like my spelling, I know I've got it all wrong ( English isn't my first language ) but I couldn't tell you whats wrong about it to save my life :cool:

    So does your logic mean my grammar is just fine cause no ones pointing out all the errors ?

    We may not know what did happen, the ability to acquire the relevant data was denied to us by the very authorities who, after a very very long battle, grudgingly agree to investigate this, the largest failure of any single structure in modern history. But we can be very certain of what didn't happen.

    Asymmetrical fire does not lead to instantaneous global failure of a steel framed structure. There is simply no other example of this ever happening as a result of fire in the history of steel framed structures.
     
  28. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    So your argument boils down to "It never happened before, so it's impossible"?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  29. ColtCabana

    ColtCabana Active Member

    False. If you're going to say something didn't happen, then please tell us what you think did happen.


    Actually, it does. It's relative to the conversation. Conspiracy theorists always say how easy to spot the holes are in the official story, yet can't explain why they would be there.

    If he's saying that Nigro's account is inaccurate, then he's calling him a liar. Say what you want, but conspiracy theorists always dance around this topic to save face. Why did Nigro establish a collapse zone around the building at 2:30 PM EST on 9/11? Because he knew it would collapse due to it's structural integrity being compromised.

    As far as explosions, what would that prove? If this was truly a controlled demolition, said explosions would have gone off milliseconds before the building collapsed. Are you implying that there was nothing combustable in the WTC?
     
  30. Grieves

    Grieves Senior Member

    I think there may have been bombs involved in some way, and that there's enough evidence to at the very least investigate that possibility. I think there's a clear potential given the nature of the attacks for the complicity of individuals within North America, and that such a possibility should be properly investigated and any negligence it reveals, complicity aside, should be punished to an appropriate extent. I think we don't have an adequate picture of the logistics behind the attack, as in who sponsored it and how, and don't have an adequate understanding of the possible 'insider trading' that took place. All in all I think the investigation failed to expose the crime in its entirety, and it just so happens the people who chaired it agree with me.
    It shouldn't matter that, given I think there may have been bombs and there's evidence of them, I don't know who exactly set them up, or where exactly they were placed, or what precisely they were made of. It shouldn't matter that, given that I think North Americans may have been complicit, I don't know exactly who they are/where they live/how they were involved precisely. It shouldn't matter that, given the lack of clarity and consideration around the issues funding and betting on the crime, I don't know exactly who paid for 9/11, or who was confidently putting money down on the attacks. I'm not prescient. I don't have extraordinary investigative authority. The investigation, as it stands, was entirely inadequate... and the crime demands adequate investigation. That's what should matter.

    People can be wrong without lying. Would be silly to suggest otherwise. As such, you can call a person wrong without calling them a liar, as witnessed above.

    Eyewitnesses claimed to have witnessed, felt, heard, or been injured by explosions. In many cases these explosions were described as bomb-blasts. In several cases the people doing the describing were firefighters. That is evidence of the potential involvement of explosives in the attack. It's as simple as that.
     
  31. ColtCabana

    ColtCabana Active Member

    You think, which is not good enough. Considering that 9/11 is one of the most investigated and researched events in history, I'm sure there is an investigation into bombs being used. Actually, I'm pretty sure the idea that bombs were used was the hypothesis, but was quickly dismissed due to lack of evidence. We actually do know who sponsored the attacks and why it happened. If one has a basic understanding of the history of the Middle East, as well as the grievances held against the United States by Osama Bin Laden, it's quite simple to put the piece together and understand why he did what he did. You do know exactly who paid for 9/11, you just don't want to believe it because you'd rather believe a far fetched conspiracy.

    Considering Nigro was there and we were not, as well as his belief that conspiracy theories hold no weight in the conversation regarding 9/11, you are calling him a liar whether you want to believe that or not. Nigro said in the original letter that "conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit." Nigro said he established a collapse zone around WTC7 on his own. No one told him to do that. If this was certainly an inside job, then how did he know the building would collapse due to anything else besides the loss of its structural integrity?

    Please provide evidence of these "bomb-blasts." How do they know it was indeed a bomb and not something combustable in the towers? When were the explosions reported? If this was a controlled demolition, such explosions would have to go off milliseconds before the building came down. There is no way around that. CD is a formula that cannot be done any other way.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  32. Grieves

    Grieves Senior Member

    An investigation which has been cited as failure by its own chairs.
    Are you saying a money-trail has been established by the 9/11 investigation directly linking Osama Bin Laden's funds to the 9/11 attacks? That is news to me. Could you provide a link?



    Once again, you can call a person wrong without calling them a liar. Him thinking I'm wrong doesn't make me a liar for thinking he's wrong, or mean I'm calling him one. That doesn't make sense.



    Bombs detonated prior to the collapse would not necessarily have anything to do with the collapse itself, as stated above. Such a tactic could simply be about hampering rescue efforts/preventing tampering and the like. On this page are some examples of witness reports of explosions and other pertinent information.
    There are also many quotes of fire-fighters who spoke of perceiving the complete collapse of the towers as demolitions/implosions, going so far in some cases as to cite the floors on which they claimed to have seen blasts from what they perceived at the time as explosives.
     
  33. ColtCabana

    ColtCabana Active Member

    I wish my Kindle wasn't out of battery and I had my charger present. I'd look into the book The 9/11 Project: A Journalist's Perspective which has some great information regarding the funding. I'll try to get that information to you before the week is up.

    Except Nigro doesn't think in this scenario, he knows. Again, my question remains; how did he know the building would collapse due to anything else besides the loss of its structural integrity?

    That first link is entirely misleading. The third video down next to the quote that says "There's a bomb in the building - start clearing out..." isn't even out the WTC. It's about an elementary school where they thought a bomb was on the morning of 9/11. If they're misleading about that, then what else is the website lying about?

    As far as the second link, there's a lot of "like an explosion.." quotes; do I really need to explain what similes and metaphors are? Also, I like how out of context Craig Carlsen's testimony is taken. Why don't they include his full testimony? (My added stuff is bolded)

    That's pretty scummy, eh? Probable only happened once, right? Wrong. See what your website doesn't include from Janice Olszewski?

    If these two quotes are taken out of context so poorly, why should I be bothered to read the others as presented? Your two links are faulty beyond belief.
     
  34. Grieves

    Grieves Senior Member

    How about something from the actual investigation?

    I provided the first links that the most basic google-search would have provided you. If you find bias present in how the quotes are presented, do a more thorough search. It doesn't change the fact that there are many multiple examples of firefighters and other first responders citing bombs on 9/11, and explosions in the lobbies completely unconnected to the plane impacts where timeline is concerned. Examples are widely available and not hard to find. Maybe you could cite one of your assertions, perhaps as to the claim explosives were thoroughly investigated early on, or that the money-trail between 9/11 and Bin Laden has been firmly established, from am outside source of some kind, biased or otherwise?
     
  35. ColtCabana

    ColtCabana Active Member

    As far as the money, the 9/11 Commission Report basically said that the funding was so widespread and diverse that tracing it to just one source would be ineffective. On page 172 of the Report, it states;

    So they knew it was a bomb for a fact or was it like a bomb/explosion. The difference between me citing the FDNY and you citing the FDNY is that mine (in this case, the testimony of fire in WTC) is hard to disprove. Nothing can be like fire. It's either fire or it isn't. Yours, on the other hand, is the opposite. Something can be like an explosion or sound like an explosion, without even really knowing whether or not it's a bomb or not. Seeing and hearing are completely different senses. Wouldn't you have to hear explosions in a large building fire?

    Quotes about explosions can be misleading, though I do agree some people heard sounds that sounded like explosions. Let's examine some of those claims;

    "Sounded like a bomb had gone off." - Keith Murphy
    "Sounds like a shotgun." - Erik Ronningen
    "Sound of popping and exploding." - Alwish Monchery
    "You could hear explosions." - Richard Smiouskas
    "...we thought were additional explosions. We kept hearing these large boom, boom" - Rosario Terranova

    Sounds convincing that explosions were used at the WTC, right? Well, what you don't know is that I took each of these quotes completely out of context. All of these (and there are plenty more) are first responders describing bodies hitting the ground after people jumped from the tower.
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2013
    • Like Like x 1
  36. Grieves

    Grieves Senior Member

    So by 'we actually do know' you meant to say 'we don't know and we don't care, because let's assume Osama.' Never-mind that Pakistani intelligence might have been involved. You know, Pakistan? That country with one of the most powerful intelligence agencies on the planet and extremist ties within those agencies/its government? That country where Osama Bin Laden was found fapping in a basement after a near decade of supposedly hunting him in Afghanistan?

    Uhuh. That's great. But there are still multiple reports of bombs and explosions you can't take out of context, because they're multiple reports of bombs and explosions in the context of reporting bombs and explosions.
    Like here.

    I've been through this all before on other threads of course, if you'd read them you could probably save us some time, but these guys are pretty clear in their description, and in stating what they experienced was not a plane-impact/a result of the plane impact. The explanation I typically hear for this is 'falling elevators', but that's nonsense.
     
  37. SR1419

    SR1419 Senior Member

    Why is it nonsense?

    from an elevator mechanic in the WTC on 9.11.01:

    http://www.thrnewmedia.com/adayinseptember/jones.htm



    These firefighters are also pretty clear in their description.



    This guy describe elevators crashing down when he got to the lobby (@ :40)

     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2013
    • Like Like x 3
  38. ColtCabana

    ColtCabana Active Member

    Straw-man argument. I have no doubts that Pakistan was taking our money and protecting Bin Laden while he was in their country. Do I know for sure and am I qualified to really preach it? Absolutely not, but it is something we can agree on. It's not a part of some lavish conspiracy theory, though. My point is that it's hard to trace al-Qaeda's money to exactly one main source because it came from so many directions. It's like if ten people gave you $1 each and I found one person and named them as the main source of your income. Are they really? No, so thus, it's of little practical significance to find one source.

    Like SR said, why is that "nonsense?" Because it doesn't fit your view? Again, your implying here that there is nothing combustable in the WTC even though there HAS to be. My point from before remains; your original sources were quotes taken entirely out of context. Could you at least apologize for linking to such a crummy website?

    Also, my question about Nigro remains that you refuse to answer; how did he know the building would collapse due to anything else besides the loss of its structural integrity?
     
  39. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    So you don't know? But previously you claimed you did know.

    Can you prove no bombs went off, do you even have positive evidence that no bombs went off?

    You are asking impossible questions and putting up strawman arguments whilst claiming others are putting up strawman arguments.

    You cannot show any visual evidence that corroborates Nigro's claims. No totally engulfed in flames WTC7, no bulges, nothing. All you are doing is quoting the OS which is shot through with holes and malpractice and according to many criminal action in not complying with mandated procedures.

    Standard practice, nit pick any contradiction of the Official Story and ignore or paper over the chasms in the OS. Anyone can obfuscate about anything and I suggest that is what you are actually doing rather than bring anything new to the table.

    Is this in context enough?

    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_firefighters.html
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  40. ColtCabana

    ColtCabana Active Member

    The funding came from various sources, mainly from fundraising. Read comprehension FTW!


    That's just a stupid thing to ask. Can you prove Jesus wasn't a velociraptor?

    So, the FDNY was wrong in their assessment of WTC7 on the day of 9/11? Why would they lie? And how is my question a strawman argument? All I'm asking is why did Nigro establish the collapse zone around WTC7?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.