Debunked: 9/11 Truth New York Times Billboard Quote

[Mick West]

AE911's new billboard (on the left), with some additional quotes for context.

The group Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911) is devoted to popularizing the theory that the World Trade Center buildings were secretly demolished by explosive devices that were placed in the building ahead of time, somehow survived the plane impacts and an hour of raging fire, and then triggered to make the buildings collapse in a way that fooled most experts into thinking that there were no explosives.

To promote this theory, AE911 likes to rent billboard space in New York's Times Square (AE911 has a yearly income of around $500,000). In particular they like to rent a billboard opposite the offices of the New York Times, admonishing the NYT for ignoring them. Here's the billboard in place:

This latest billboard (which will be there for the month of September) is promoting favorite claim of evidence of AE911, that there were multiple reports of explosions on 9/11. The text reads:

COLLAPSE OR EXPLOSION?
Ask the 118 FDNY members who spoke of explosions in the oral histories The NY Times sued the City of New York to obtain

"Everybody I think...thought these things were blown up."
— FDNY Fire Marshal

Sounds persuasive, if it were actually true. In fact by the very account of the Fire Marshal they quote, the idea that the building exploded was something he very quickly figured out did not happen, and he explains why he initially though it happened. Basically he went into the situation knowing it was a terrorist attack, so was very concerned about secondary explosive devices. Then when the building collapsed, he did not report hearing any explosions, but instead said that the building looked like it had exploded, he continued to think this for several hours, but he later realized (probably after seeing the collapse on TV) that this was just the angle from which he was looking at it.

So did everyone think the buildings were blown up? Who is "everyone", and how long did they think this for? The key thing here is in what was removed from the quote, and the surrounding context:

Then I heard on the radio all marshals are to report to — and I have no idea where it was. Oh, near the Jewish memorial thing.
I made my way over there, found [the other firefighters]. All the guys who were with us were okay. We stood there for a few minutes, and eventually I said, "We shouldn't even be here. This is the Jewish thing. This is a terrorist thing. This is a dumb place to be standing. This thing might blow up. No. Everybody I think at that point still thought these things were blown up. So I fully expected anything else to blow up.
I think we mentioned that or somebody mentioned it to one of the supervisors, and then they said "Oh, yeah, okay." Then they took us down to the very end of Battery Park.

Notice what AE911 removed, "... at that point still ...". They removed that because the reality of the marshal's statement is that the belief he (and others) had in explosions was a brief one (and as he later explains, a mistake). He brought it up to explain why they moved from the "Jewish memorial" (likely the Museum of Jewish Heritage, just west of the Battery Park Underpass), because there was concern it would be a target of a secondary attack using explosives.

Here are all the quotes relating to explosions or explosive devices from the marshal.

"That was the only thing I remembered from terrorist training was watch out for
secondary devices."

"The tower was -- it looked to me -- I thought it was exploding actually. That's what I thought for hours afterwards, that it had exploded, or the plane, or there had been some device on the plane that had exploded, because the debris from the tower had shot out far over our heads. It was raining down."

"But nobody knew what had happened. I still thought it had exploded, something had exploded."

"At that point I had no idea what had happened. It seemed that the thing had blown up.

"Everybody I think at that point still thought these things were blown up. So I was fully expecting anything else to blow up"

"I still didn't realize what had happened. I totally thought it had been blown up. That's just the perspective of looking up at it, it seemed to have exploded out."

Here he explains very clearly that it was a mistake. It was just the angle, the perspective, he was looking up at. Yes it looked like it was exploding from down on the street, and since he'd been trained that there were secondary explosive devices in terrorist attacks then he assumed it had exploded, as he said perhaps "there had been some device on the plane that had exploded". later he figured out what had actually happened.

Notice also that his account of how he perceived things blowing up differs greatly from the theory popularized by AE911. He just says "It seemed that the thing had blown up.", "something had exploded", "some device". So he's just describing one big explosion. AE911 on the other hand describe every floor being rigged with sophisticated explosives that were carefully timed to go off one at a time to simulate the appearance of a progressive collapse.

Another thing the AE911 like to promote is the idea that lets of people heard explosions that day. Now of course this is perfectly expected, there were the explosions of the plane impacts, fuel explosions, the loud sounds made by debris falling hundred of feet, and things like gas canisters exploding in the fires. But what of their star witness, how does he describe the sounds of what he mistakenly thought were explosions.

He actually never mentions the sound of explosions. In fact his account strongly suggests that he did not hear any. The first tower (WTC2, the south tower) fell while he was stationed by the pedestrian bridge in front of the World Financial Center Building, a few hundred fee from WTC2.

I remember glancing to my right, and Joe ... was at that moment looking up. I suddenly saw this face like a look of complete terror, and he just turned on his heel and took off running. I started running after him and looking over my shoulder.

The tower was -- it looked to me -- I thought it was exploding actually. That's what I thought for hours afterwards, that it had exploded, or the plane, or there had been some device on the plane that had exploded, because the debris from the tower had shot out far over our heads. It was raining down.

So he didn't hear any explosions. And he was incredibly close. It simply looked like an explosion, because he was nearly directly underneath it.

So the very person that AE911 quoted on their poster basically debunks their theory in the statement from which they cherry picked a quote (and then had to remove part of, because it didn't fit their story). He didn't report hearing explosions. He initially got the impression that there had been a single large explosion, but then later realized there had not, and it was just, as he said, perspective.

I encourage people to read the oral histories of 9/11. They provide a visceral view into what really happened that day: the horror, the fear, the chaos, and the bravery. But don't read them like AE911 did - simply combing through them to find sections that might seem to support their odd theory when taken out of context and edited a bit. Read them in depth. These brave men and women gave their all that day, and they each suffered deeply for it. Don't use them. Honor them. You want 9/11 truth? It's in these histories.

 

[Oystein]

Thanks, Mick.

Would it be a good idea to send this to the NYT front desk?

 

[Rozza]

The truth is that there were copious amounts of witness reports of explosions.
Source: https://youtu.be/G1zED8dy63w

 

[Mick West]

The truth is that there were copious amounts of witness reports of explosions.
Source: https://youtu.be/G1zED8dy63w

Of course there were, that's the entire point. As I noted in the OP:

Another thing the AE911 like to promote is the idea that lets of people heard explosions that day. Now of course this is perfectly expected, there were the explosions of the plane impacts, fuel explosions, the loud sounds made by debris falling hundred of feet, and things like gas canisters exploding in the fires.

Lots of people thought there were explosives being used on that day, because all they had to go on was what was right in front of them in an incredibly complex, chaotic, and stressful situation.

 

[Mick West]

This thread is about the quote used on the billboard. It is not a general 9/11 discussion thread. Please stay on topic.

 

[benthamitemetric]

If they had directly attributed that quote to Mr. Coyle with the "at that point still" words removed, I think Mr. Coyle would have a clear cut case of defamation per se against AE911Truth under NY law (and he may still have a decent case, even with the attempted anonymization of the quote). In any case, however, the very fact that they had to anonymize the quote to hide its true origin from the public (whether to simply mislead the public, escape a defamation claim, or both) is damning to the validity of their claim and to their motives. Kudos to Mick for catching and fleshing out how misleading this ad is.

 

[deirdre]

In any case, however, the very fact that they had to anonymize the quote to hide its true origin from the public

no. it's because noone would know who "Mr. Coyle" was. "FDNY Fire Marshall" sounds more authoritative. But since they are quoting him in his capacity as a city official, i believe that opens up lawsuits from the City itself.

 

[benthamitemetric]

no. it's because noone would know who "Mr. Coyle" was. "FDNY Fire Marshall" sounds more authoritative. But since they are quoting him in his capacity as a city official, i believe that opens up lawsuits from the City itself.

Those are fair points, though I think they could just as easily have attributed it to "John Coyle, FDNY Fire Marshall". I'm no graphic designer, but it seems to me like they had more than enough room on that poster for both the full quote and the correct attribution.

 

[trevor]

The truth is that there were copious amounts of witness reports of explosions.
Source: https://youtu.be/G1zED8dy63w

It was a fire. of course there were explosions. furnace's, gas tanks, computer screens, soda machines etc...Anyone who's been around a campfire knows that there's "explosions" in fires.

 

[Rozza]

Of course there were, that's the entire point. As I noted in the OP:



Lots of people thought there were explosives being used on that day, because all they had to go on was what was right in front of them in an incredibly complex, chaotic, and stressful situation.

NYFD 1st responders reported that WTC1's lobby was damaged by a secondary explosion, the opposite end to the plane impact, well before any collapses but after the respective plane's impacts. A concussion wave was reported to have shattered WTC1's lobby's masonry cladding & plate glass windows indicative of a high frequency explosive. This concussion wave was witnessed to have originated in the basement most famously William Rodriguez.


Source: https://youtu.be/eS8URT9anUE


Other building were also reported Barry Jennings emergency response coordinator NYHC in WTC7, not struck by a plane.

[..video removed "No Click Policy" and the content doesnt match the descriptive text above. at least not he first few minutes i watched.]


And many others all at the wrong end of the stick as it were without even mentioning any phenomena that occurred in the buildings as they collapsed.

 

[MikeG]

NYFD 1st responders reported that WTC1's lobby was damaged by a secondary explosion, the opposite end to the plane impact, well before any collapses but after the respective plane's impacts. A concussion wave was reported to have shattered WTC1's lobby's masonry cladding & plate glass windows indicative of a high frequency explosive. This concussion wave was witnessed to have originated in the basement most famously William Rodriguez.


Source: https://youtu.be/eS8URT9anUE


Other building were also reported Barry Jennings emergency response coordinator NYHC in WTC7, not struck by a plane.


Source: https://youtu.be/drimDAgvHMU


And many others all at the wrong end of the stick as it were without even mentioning any phenomena that occurred in the buildings as they collapsed.

There is an older thread that you might want to look at:
https://www.metabunk.org/eyewitness-accounts-of-explosions.t1810/#post-50326

 

[Hama Neggs]

reported that WTC1's lobby was damaged by a secondary explosion,.... well before any collapses

So how was it supposedly related to any collapses, then?

 

[Nada Truther]

So how was it supposedly related to any collapses, then?

Agreed... The proponents of the "government did it" mentality do not need this to make sense, they just need the things. According to most theories... this was the most technically executed, precision controlled demolition in history. It needed to not look like a controlled demolition, but needed to be one, so we could make sure that the buildings came down completely. Yet they set off a bomb in the basement before the planes hit, not during impact, even though this would be clearly heard and thought of as fishy. This bomb was set off; apparently to pre-weaken the structure at the base, even though it collapsed from the top down; and was set off an hour before the planned demolition? I don't see the logic in trying to keep things on the DL and doing things that could so obviously jeopardize the mission. What if someone hears the bombs early and blows the whistle? What if the weakening of the structure makes the buildings come down earlier than planned and more citizens are sacrifices than we deem necessary? And, as it has been mentioned several times in many different posts, there were very few audible explosions that day.

With all the talk of the lightning precision of the planning and execution, doesn't this strike any true-believers as "odd"? It really doesn't fit the mold of perfect precision. Why blow the basement before it is time?

Of course, these are the same people that believe that the powers that be were smart enough to pull this off, but not smart enough to not accidentally "slip up" in national interviews. I am speaking of Bush talking about seeing the plane hit and Silverstein's "Pull-it" comment, for example.

I apologize for not having links and sources. I believe that my above references have been brought up enough that they shouldn't be news to anyone, and I didn't have the time to go look for and link them.

 

[benthamitemetric]

Just to update my previous post--I did some asking around with people more knowledgeable than I on NY law re the defamation issue and a colleague who does a lot of work charities pointed out to me that, unless a charitable organization has the written consent of an individual, it cannot use such individual's name in the solicitation of funds (and the linked advertisement would count as a solicitation of funds under NY regs). Given that, I'd venture to guess that AE911Truth did not use Mr. Coyle's name because they do not have his consent to do so. It makes me wonder whether they would be able to get permission from even one of the fire fighters they quote? And, if not, why not? Does anyone think these "truth seekers" even sought a deeper understanding of the truth of their interpretation of such quotes by asking the individuals quoted?

 

[Jeffrey Orling]

AE is being sneaky and trying to have their cake and eat it too. They post a quote without attribution and out of context and shield themselves from a defamation suit or a cease and desist order. PR scamming.

 

[jaydeehess]

So how was it supposedly related to any collapses, then?

It doesn't have to. It reminds me of the character "Les Nessman" in "WKRP In Cincinnati". He often spouted something conspratorial and then simply stated ominously, " think about it".

It's a game of connect the dots except here we can connect dots, flyspeck, watermarks, coffee stains and retinal floaters.

 

[econ41]

Of course there were, that's the entire point. As I noted in the OP:

Lots of people thought there were explosives being used on that day, because all they had to go on was what was right in front of them in an incredibly complex, chaotic, and stressful situation.

I'm still astonished at the number of debunkers who deny the simple facts that: (1) There were explosions and (2) Witnesses reported hearing explosions. HOWEVER the topic goes to the deliberate mndacity of AE911 which Mick has demonstrated clearly.

 

[petral]

I completely agree that the choice of the Fire Marshal quote was not the best, not so much because of the ellipsis - I think the use of the past tense in "thought" does tend to imply that there was a change of mind later (truthers would say because they later "learnt" the official story while debunkers would say they learnt the truth) - but because he said from the start that he was worried about secondary explosions which obviously can tend to prejudice you.

However, there are very specific comparisons to explosions made by first responders and I think to say they might have been confused is rather to patronise them. Here are some below from http://www.911truth.org/explosive-testimony-revelations-twin-towers-in-911-oral-histories/.

"[T]here was just an explosion [in the south tower]. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions."
–Firefighter Richard Banaciski

"I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?"
–Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory

"t was [like a] professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'."
–Paramedic Daniel Rivera

A story in the Guardian said that "police and fire officials were carrying out the first wave of evacuations when the first of the World Trade Centre towers collapsed. Some eyewitnesses reported hearing another explosion just before the structure crumbled. Police said that it looked almost like a 'planned implosion.'"5

[...]

Additionally, though, was there any evidence inconsistent with explosives being used? Was there evidence of other things causing these explosions? You say that other things can cause explosions but is there actual evidence of other things?

What do we have?
1. There are a significant number of testimonies of explosions that resemble those caused by explosives
2. There is nothing inconsistent with explosives being used ... or is there?
3. There is no obvious evidence of something else causing the explosions ... or is there?

[...]

Then we have:
Witnesses of explosions and/or explosives were not asked to testify at the 9/11 Commission. Why not? If you have an answer for this question, Mick, please give it.

 

[Jeffrey Orling]

Why haven't we seen a sensible discussions about the things in those towers which would explode????? and there were many... specifically electrical step down transformers.

Some things that DID explode:

lighting balasts
step down transformers
pressurized containers
pipes with water (steam explosions)
ligh bulbs
gas piping LPG
over heated tanks of refrigerant
over heated tanks of water (steam explosions)

Of course some were small explosions and others larger.... but there were many things exploding. How could they not?

 

[Nada Truther]

The "Explosions" could have been metal snapping, stuff hitting the ground, people hitting the ground, who knows what? But, just hearing a "boom" doesn't mean that it was a bomb! I live near O'Hare airport in Chicago. About a month or so after 9/11, there was an issue on a plane with someone who wanted to get into the cockpit and threw some sort of a fit when they wouldn't let him in. Turns out he was a special needs man that usually gets to go in and see the cockpit and talk to the pilots when he flies and was upset when he couldn't and made a scene and put everyone on edge. Fighter jets were scrambled when the word got out of a person trying to "break" into the cockpit. When the fighters flew by supersonic, I heard the sonic boom. At the time, I thought there was an big accident, or that something blew up. I would have, at the time said that I heard and "explosion". That was not the case. I know that now, and no longer think I heard something blow up. End of story. How many of theses people who say they heard explosions, or secondary devices, still hold on to that theory after the fact? Probably not many.

 

[Mick West]

I think the key word in many of these descriptions is "like".

"You know like when they demolish a building"
"It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings"
"Police said that it looked almost like a 'planned implosion."

AE911 have combed though the oral histories and just picekd the ones where people said it was like a demolition. I don't think anyone would disagree that collapsing buildings have some similarities, nor would people disagree that on that day there were lots of loud noises that sounds like (or even were) explosions.

It's very misleading. I think in these cases you also need to look at the broader context, particularly the rest of the individual's statements. Take this one from above

"t was [like a] professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'."
–Paramedic Daniel Rivera

"It was a frigging noise. At first I thought it was -- do you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear "Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop" That's exactly what -- because I thought it was that. When I heard that frigging noise, that's when I saw the building coming down."

They took "a frigging noise. At first I thought it was -- do you ever see" and replaced it with [like], so yet again they are removing the first responders statement that this was his impression at the time, and misrepresenting it as his continued belief.

 

[Mick West]

If anyone wants to add similar quotes again, please include the source and the full context (i.e. the full statement). If it's a video, then give the full transcript of the video.

Do not repeat cherry-picked quotes without context.

 

[SR1419]

However, there are very specific comparisons to explosions made by first responders and I think to say they might have been confused is rather to patronise them

There have been several threads on the general topic of "explosions" and the sound of explosions on 9/11:

https://www.metabunk.org/search/10149199/?q=explosions&o=relevance&c[title_only]=1

 

[tadaaa]

on the topic of eyewitness stories being distorted, the linked URL is a fascinating article by a journalist who unwittingly started one - around the 7/7 bombings

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/jun/27/july7.uksecurity

"A year on from 7/7, wild rumours are circulating about who planted the bombs and why. Some people even claim this picture of the four bombers was faked. Mark Honigsbaum, who accidentally triggered at least one of the conspiracy theories, investigates"

it describes how some of the initial reporting takes on a life all of its own - and has a great twist at the end

 

[Nada Truther]

I think the key word in many of these descriptions is "like".

I have said many times that a Baby Ruth candy bar "looks like" a piece of poop, but that doesn't make them the same thing. You better know which is which before you take a bite.

 

[petral]

I think the key word in many of these descriptions is "like".

"You know like when they demolish a building"
"It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings"
"Police said that it looked almost like a 'planned implosion."

AE911 have combed though the oral histories and just picekd the ones where people said it was like a demolition. I don't think anyone would disagree that collapsing buildings have some similarities, nor would people disagree that on that day there were lots of loud noises that sounds like (or even were) explosions.

It's very misleading. I think in these cases you also need to look at the broader context, particularly the rest of the individual's statements. Take this one from above

"It was a frigging noise. At first I thought it was -- do you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear "Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop" That's exactly what -- because I thought it was that. When I heard that frigging noise, that's when I saw the building coming down."

They took "a frigging noise. At first I thought it was -- do you ever see" and replaced it with [like], so yet again they are removing the first responders statement that this was his impression at the time, and misrepresenting it as his continued belief.

Seriously I don't think this is cherry-picking - I would've put the full quote but I used the secondary quote without thinking about it. As I said in my original response, I don't think removing "at that point still" makes an appreciable difference to the meaning in the billboard quote. The use of the past tense "thought" implies a change of mind afterwards just as it does in the "pop, pop, etc" quote above. I don't think the abbreviated quotes are appreciably different in meaning from the full quotes. And yes they use the word "like" meaning they think it's like a controlled demolition. They don't say it was because in hindsight they "know" it wasn't and in any case even at the time they wouldn't have known for sure, they're just saying that that's what it was like. But what about the specificity and accumulation of all the different likes: there's "pop pop pop", "flash, flash, flash" "going all the way round like a belt".

[ off topic/ explosion theory questions moved to https://www.metabunk.org/petral-discussion-on-reports-of-explosion-noises-on-9-11.t7926/

 

[deirdre]

The use of the past tense "thought" implies a change of mind afterwards just as it does in the "pop, pop, etc" quote above.

Not when you are talking about a past event.

"At my wedding ceremony everybody thought our marriage would last a lifetime. " While that does possibly imply a change of thought afterwards, it gives you absolutely no time reference of when the thought was changed. Did my guests change my mind during the reception? Did they change their minds 5 years later, 30 years later?

I don't think the abbreviated quotes are appreciably different in meaning from the full quotes.

Then why not just be honest and use full quotes.

Everybody I think at that point still thought these things were blown up. So I fully expected anything else to blow up

Same day. Huge difference to what the billboard is trying to imply.

 

[petral]

Not when you are talking about a past event.

"At my wedding ceremony everybody thought our marriage would last a lifetime. " While that does possibly imply a change of thought afterwards, it gives you absolutely no time reference of when the thought was changed. Did my guests change my mind during the reception? Did they change their minds 5 years later, 30 years later?


Then why not just be honest and use full quotes.

Everybody I think at that point still thought these things were blown up. So I fully expected anything else to blow up

Same day. Huge difference to what the billboard is trying to imply.

I would have been so happy to use the full quotes. I'm actually really annoyed that A&E don't use the full quote because it means that people can pounce on them and say they're misleading. It was just the first thing I found. I'd change my post and put them in but then that would invalidate the responses. Can I simply put the full quotes in. Very happy to do that.

 

[deirdre]

I would have been so happy to use the full quotes. I'm actually really annoyed that A&E don't use the full quote because it means that people can pounce on them and say they're misleading. It was just the first thing I found. I'd change my post and put them in but then that would invalidate the responses. Can I simply put the full quotes in. Very happy to do that.

i kinda think this whole convo as far as other quotes is off topic really. the topic of this thread is the specific poster from ae911. and that specific quote. But i guess discussing other instances where ae911 misquotes witnesess to create a false impression is "kinda" ok. Just make a new post with the corrected quotes if you like, i agree that editing your original post will confuse the reader. I do think it's nice that you acknowledge full quotes in context should be used.

 

[petral]

Seriously I don't think this is cherry-picking - I would've put the full quote but I used the secondary quote without thinking about it. As I said in my original response, I don't think removing "at that point still" makes an appreciable difference to the meaning in the billboard quote. The use of the past tense "thought" implies a change of mind afterwards just as it does in the "pop, pop, etc" quote above. I don't think the abbreviated quotes are appreciably different in meaning from the full quotes. And yes they use the word "like" meaning they think it's like a controlled demolition. They don't say it was because in hindsight they "know" it wasn't and in any case even at the time they wouldn't have known for sure, they're just saying that that's what it was like. But what about the specificity and accumulation of all the different likes: there's "pop pop pop", "flash, flash, flash" "going all the way round like a belt".

[ off topic/ explosion theory questions moved to https://www.metabunk.org/petral-discussion-on-reports-of-explosion-noises-on-9-11.t7926/]

This link does not seem to work.

 

[Auldy]

This link does not seem to work.

Try https://www.metabunk.org/petral-discussion-on-reports-of-explosion-noises-on-9-11.t7926/

 

[deirdre]

This link does not seem to work.

fixed

 

[benthamitemetric]

Seriously I don't think this is cherry-picking - I would've put the full quote but I used the secondary quote without thinking about it. As I said in my original response, I don't think removing "at that point still" makes an appreciable difference to the meaning in the billboard quote. The use of the past tense "thought" implies a change of mind afterwards just as it does in the "pop, pop, etc" quote above. I don't think the abbreviated quotes are appreciably different in meaning from the full quotes. And yes they use the word "like" meaning they think it's like a controlled demolition. They don't say it was because in hindsight they "know" it wasn't and in any case even at the time they wouldn't have known for sure, they're just saying that that's what it was like. But what about the specificity and accumulation of all the different likes: there's "pop pop pop", "flash, flash, flash" "going all the way round like a belt".

[ off topic/ explosion theory questions moved to https://www.metabunk.org/petral-discussion-on-reports-of-explosion-noises-on-9-11.t7926/

Here is the full text of the advertisement:

COLLAPSE OR EXPLOSION? Ask the 118 FDNY members who spoke of explosions in the oral histories The NY Times sued the City of New York to obtain.

"Everybody I think... thought these things were blown up." -- FDNY Fire Marshal.

The advertisement asks the viewer to ask the fire fighters whether the building collapsed or exploded. It doesn't say to read what they thought only at the exact moment of the collapse. It says--present tense--"Ask the 118 FDNY members who spoke of explosions in the oral histories The NY Times sued the City of New York to obtain." If you accept that the quote by Mr. Cole bring provided is in response to the rhetorical question posed by the ad (Collapse or Explosion?) as context would suggest, then you are accepting that Mr. Cole's views at the time of that interview are his answer to that question in the eyes of AE911Truth.

So what were Mr. Cole's views at the time of that interview? If you were to guess from the dishonestly edited AE911Truth quote, you would probably say that Mr. Cole and other fire fighters thought the buildings were blown-up, or, at best, you couldn't say whether they thought the building blew up. If you look at the full quote, however, it becomes clear that their opinion on whether the building blew up as changed and they no longer believe that. The full quote thus provides the exact opposite response to the rhetorical question posed in the ad as would the dishonestly truncated quote. And, if you read all of Mr. Cole's testimony, the difference becomes even more stark. Here is a direct quote from the last time Mr. Cole addressed the notion that the building was blown up in that interview (Mick partially quotes it above but leaves off the most important line, in my opinion):

"I still didn't realized what had happened. I totally thought it had been blown up. That's just the perspective of looking up at it, it seemed to have exploded out. But that I guess was the force of the upper stories collapsing down."

(Emphasis added.)

In short, AE911Truth wrote the ad in such a way as to imply that Mr. Cole and many other fighters still think the buildings were blown up, but that is inconsistent with Mr. Cole's full quote and testimony. Here's a rewrite to make the ad honest:

COLLAPSE OR EXPLOSION? Ask the 118 FDNY members who spoke of explosions in the oral histories The NY Times sued the City of New York to obtain.

"I totally thought it had been blown up. That's just the perspective of looking up at it, it seemed to have exploded out. But that I guess was the force of the upper stories collapsing down." -- FDNY Fire Marshal.

Doesn't have quite the same effect, does it?

 

[Oystein]

Here is the full text of the advertisement:

COLLAPSE OR EXPLOSION? Ask the 118 FDNY members who spoke of explosions in the oral histories The NY Times sued the City of New York to obtain.

"Everybody I think... thought these things were blown up." -- FDNY Fire Marshal.

The advertisement asks the viewer to ask the fire fighters whether the building collapsed or exploded ...

Has AE ever actually asked any of these 118? How many? Who? What did they say?

 

[deirdre]

Even the adding in of "sued the City of NY to obtain" is disingenuously implying a coverup about the topic of "sounds like explosions".

While the NY Times did fight a FOIA request in the courts,

The administration has argued that releasing these materials would be an invasion of privacy for the families of those who died at the trade center, and for the firefighters who responded to the disaster scene.

...
Included in the material that the administration says should never become public are the oral histories given to Fire Department officials by scores of firefighters and chiefs after Sept. 11. Administration officials say that the firefighters and chiefs were promised confidentiality when they gave their accounts, and that to release them would violate that promise and reveal everything from opinions about the city's emergency response to gruesome details of death and damage
Freedom of Information Law.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/23/n...1-response-not-for-public-city-says.html?_r=0

the court still allowed the FDNY to exempt the statements it didnt wish released to the public.

 

[Landru]

Has AE ever actually asked any of these 118? How many? Who? What did they say?

I imagine if anyone dId they would get hit in the mouth.

 

[petral]

Here is the full text of the advertisement:

COLLAPSE OR EXPLOSION? Ask the 118 FDNY members who spoke of explosions in the oral histories The NY Times sued the City of New York to obtain.

"Everybody I think... thought these things were blown up." -- FDNY Fire Marshal.

The advertisement asks the viewer to ask the fire fighters whether the building collapsed or exploded. It doesn't say to read what they thought only at the exact moment of the collapse. It says--present tense--"Ask the 118 FDNY members who spoke of explosions in the oral histories The NY Times sued the City of New York to obtain." If you accept that the quote by Mr. Cole bring provided is in response to the rhetorical question posed by the ad (Collapse or Explosion?) as context would suggest, then you are accepting that Mr. Cole's views at the time of that interview are his answer to that question in the eyes of AE911Truth.

So what were Mr. Cole's views at the time of that interview? If you were to guess from the dishonestly edited AE911Truth quote, you would probably say that Mr. Cole and other fire fighters thought the buildings were blown-up, or, at best, you couldn't say whether they thought the building blew up. If you look at the full quote, however, it becomes clear that their opinion on whether the building blew up as changed and they no longer believe that. The full quote thus provides the exact opposite response to the rhetorical question posed in the ad as would the dishonestly truncated quote. And, if you read all of Mr. Cole's testimony, the difference becomes even more stark. Here is a direct quote from the last time Mr. Cole addressed the notion that the building was blown up in that interview (Mick partially quotes it above but leaves off the most important line, in my opinion):

"I still didn't realized what had happened. I totally thought it had been blown up. That's just the perspective of looking up at it, it seemed to have exploded out. But that I guess was the force of the upper stories collapsing down."

(Emphasis added.)

In short, AE911Truth wrote the ad in such a way as to imply that Mr. Cole and many other fighters still think the buildings were blown up, but that is inconsistent with Mr. Cole's full quote and testimony. Here's a rewrite to make the ad honest:

COLLAPSE OR EXPLOSION? Ask the 118 FDNY members who spoke of explosions in the oral histories The NY Times sued the City of New York to obtain.

"I totally thought it had been blown up. That's just the perspective of looking up at it, it seemed to have exploded out. But that I guess was the force of the upper stories collapsing down." -- FDNY Fire Marshal.

Doesn't have quite the same effect, does it?

No, you're right, it does not, and I think what they've done is dishonest, too, however, for myself how I interpret the use of the past with "thought" is that he thinks differently now - maybe that's just me but that's the effect it has on me.

 

[Happy Brightyly]

It seems a little odd that you're claiming some sort of dishonesty here. Your objection is merely that the words 'at that point still' were omitted. It's not as if this omission changes the meaning. And quote contains the dot dot dot ellipsis, so they're being open about an ellipsis.

[... Video removed, see posting guidelines]

 

[Auldy]

It seems a little odd that you're claiming some sort of dishonesty here. Your objection is merely that the words 'at that point still' were omitted. It's not as if this omission changes the meaning.

Yes. It completely changes the meaning.

"Everybody I think... thought these things were blown up." = Fire Marshall claiming everyone, presumably referring to all the emergency services there, agreed that the buildings were blown up.

adding the removed text "Everybody I think at this point sill thought these things were blown up." = Fire Marshall speculating that he and others nearby didn't have all the pertinent details at hand in the chaos of what happened during 9/11. It heavily implies that everyone who was thinking that it had been blown up at the time, now know otherwise.

You need to read the OP again.

How can removing "at this point still" not change the meaning?

Are you aware of Dr MacQueen's recent presentation about the oral histories of the firefighters, and other eye witness accounts of the events from the day?

Please include a timestamp to the relevant section of your 44minute video.

 

[deirdre]

Please include a timestamp to the relevant section of your 44minute video.

@Happy Brightyly this thread is not about general chat of whether explosives were used on the TTs or not. Please keep the focus specific to the billboard and the specific quote. For general discussion of the broader theory you can follow and respond to (Petral's discussion) the link in Post #26.