Debunked: 9/11 Truth New York Times Billboard Quote

DougW

Member
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]
Well they are either dishonest or purposely misleading.
 
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?



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


This seems criminally dishonest. The original statement, that at the time everyone thought the towers had been blown up, remains true. The addition that people were then told otherwise does not affect the truthfulness of the original statements. It's odd that this website, which claims to be about thinking critically, and looking at evidence, should take as evidence of the truth that what the witnesses were told later is the truth, rather than what the witnesses themselves saw.
 

tinkertailor

Senior Member.
This seems criminally dishonest. The original statement, that at the time everyone thought the towers had been blown up, remains true. The addition that people were then told otherwise does not affect the truthfulness of the original statements. It's odd that this website, which claims to be about thinking critically, and looking at evidence, should take as evidence of the truth that what the witnesses were told later is the truth, rather than what the witnesses themselves saw.
Isn't it more dishonest to insinuate that a FDNY Fire Marshal still believes something that he now knows not to be true? It isn't about what he was 'told later', it's about the fact that AE911 is using a marshal's testimony as evidence to convince others something that the marshal himself doesn't believe. Just because he initially thought (in the absolute war zone-level pandemonium of Ground Zero) that the towers were blown up doesn't mean that they were, nor does it mean that he still thinks so. I drove past a car-v-motorcycle accident yesterday and thought it was a hit-and-run. Later I learned that it wasn't. My perspective of what I saw doesn't change the truth of it, and if the newspaper posted a quote from me saying "It looked to me . . . like a hit-and-run" when what I said was "It looked to me at the time just driving by like a hit-and-run but now I realize it isn't" they would be skewing the truth.
We are looking at evidence. We're looking at his whole statement, not the one the AE911 picked-and-pulled from.
 

Nada Truther

Active Member
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]

The actual quote basically says that they thought they were blown up at the time, but now know the truth, that they were not. Doesn't this "actual meaning" of the quote go against what A&E911 has been trying to say all along? That the buildings were blown up. Why would they deliberately put a quote up there that says that they weren't blown up? Unless they were trying to mislead! It gives the indication that the grand feeling was that everyone thought that they had been blown up. PERIOD! Not, thought "at that point still", but they know better now. The actual quote would have negated the sentiment of what they want people to think.
 

Keith Beachy

Senior Member
This seems criminally dishonest. The original statement, that at the time everyone thought the towers had been blown up, remains true. The addition that people were then told otherwise does not affect the truthfulness of the original statements. It's odd that this website, which claims to be about thinking critically, and looking at evidence, should take as evidence of the truth that what the witnesses were told later is the truth, rather than what the witnesses themselves saw.
The towers were not blown up, they fell due to fire. The billboard is misleading, and false. There is no evidence for explosives being use on 9/11. No damage to anything from explosives, no damage on the steel, no sounds of explosives.

But do you insist this is evidence for explosives, witnesses saying they heard sounds that sounded like; is simile evidence for explosives?
Is this your evidence? Hearsay, or worse... or what did they hear.
 

Efftup

Senior Member.
and the fact you use the phrase criminally dishonest is a huge insult to anyone who truly seeks the truth. It's actually criminally dishonest of AE911T to misrepresent someone's testimony in this way, especially as they are almost certainly using this billboard to solicit funds. THAT would be nothing short of outright fraud.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001

EDIT: This may well be the wrong US code, but it's fraud nonetheless.
 

Nada Truther

Active Member
"Sounded like bombs" –Keith Murphy
"A huge explosion" –Gerard Gorman
"Sound of popping and exploding" –Alwish Monchery
"Explosions" –William Burns
"Kept hearing these large boom, boom" –Rosario Terranova
"Sounded like explosions." –Anthony Fitzgerald
"Like a shotgun going off" –Mark Meier
"Sounded like explosions" –Wilfred Barriere
"Sounded like bombs, like blockbusters" –John Murray
"You could hear explosions" –Richard Smiouskas
"Sounded like an M-80, that's how loud they were" –Tim Pearson
"Sounds like a shotgun" –Eric Ronningen
"Sounded like an explosion" –John Morabito
"There were lots of explosions" –Jeff Birnbaum
"Under the assumption that the sounds were secondary bombs." –Andrew Rodriguez
"Sounded like bombs. Like a bomb going off. I mean, it was huge." –FDNY Deputy Chief Peter Hayden[/EX]
Is this your evidence? Hearsay, or worse... or what did they hear.[/QUOTE]


So, if Keith's quotes are accurate: The towers and/or WTC 7 were brought down by either a bomb or bombs, an explosion, possibly some sort of pop gun, a shotgun, an M-80, but definitely not massive structural damage and fire; because no said they heard that!

That is many Truther's logic. "Someone said it at some time, regardless of what else they said, or what they said after they reasoned it out, so it must be the case.
 
The towers were not blown up, they fell due to fire. The billboard is misleading, and false. There is no evidence for explosives being use on 9/11. No damage to anything from explosives, no damage on the steel, no sounds of explosives.

But do you insist this is evidence for explosives, witnesses saying they heard sounds that sounded like; is simile evidence for explosives?
Is this your evidence? Hearsay, or worse... or what did they hear.


One wonders at the sort of psychological gymnastics people in denial make themselves perform. What on earth is your point? Are you really satisfied with saying that since some of these people said 'like' then you can discount it? And the quotes that don't say like, will you just fill it in for them, and tell them, in your own head, that what they heard sounded merely 'like' an explosion?

Also, there is plenty of video recording of explosions going off extant from the day. And the oral testimonies from the firefighters have been analyzed by a professor in that sort of field and he concluded that it seems people really did hear explosions.

You can perform some more mental gymnastics and make yourself believe that these 'explosions' were nothing more than cans of deodorant going off.
 
Isn't it more dishonest to insinuate that a FDNY Fire Marshal still believes something that he now knows not to be true? It isn't about what he was 'told later', it's about the fact that AE911 is using a marshal's testimony as evidence to convince others something that the marshal himself doesn't believe. Just because he initially thought (in the absolute war zone-level pandemonium of Ground Zero) that the towers were blown up doesn't mean that they were, nor does it mean that he still thinks so. I drove past a car-v-motorcycle accident yesterday and thought it was a hit-and-run. Later I learned that it wasn't. My perspective of what I saw doesn't change the truth of it, and if the newspaper posted a quote from me saying "It looked to me . . . like a hit-and-run" when what I said was "It looked to me at the time just driving by like a hit-and-run but now I realize it isn't" they would be skewing the truth.
We are looking at evidence. We're looking at his whole statement, not the one the AE911 picked-and-pulled from.


Here's what's wrong with your simile. Imagine you had actually witnessed a hit and run. But then later the authorities told you it was not a hit and run.

Everyone initially thought the buildings were blown up. This is very clear. It is criminally dishonest to claim that this is not the case.

It is like you witnessed the hit and run, and are now being told that you did not witness the hit and run.

At the time, you might say, I thought I'd seen a hit and run, but later the authorities told me I hadn't.

If this seems odd to you, indeed it is odd. But you should look into psychology a bit more. The authorities can make people believe all sorts of things. They have advanced the science of this enormously.
 

Keith Beachy

Senior Member
One wonders at the sort of psychological gymnastics people in denial make themselves perform. What on earth is your point? Are you really satisfied with saying that since some of these people said 'like' then you can discount it? And the quotes that don't say like, will you just fill it in for them, and tell them, in your own head, that what they heard sounded merely 'like' an explosion?

Also, there is plenty of video recording of explosions going off extant from the day. And the oral testimonies from the firefighters have been analyzed by a professor in that sort of field and he concluded that it seems people really did hear explosions.

You can perform some more mental gymnastics and make yourself believe that these 'explosions' were nothing more than cans of deodorant going off.
The sad part, these statements are sounds bodies made when they hit the ground, or objects when the people jumped on 9/11 because of the massive heat energy of the biggest office fires in history, the first time in history 10,000 gallons, 66,000 pounds of jet fuel was used to start the biggest office fires in history, in the shortest time on multiple floors in seconds...
Bodies hitting stuff, not explosives.
Simile, not evidence for explosives. Explosives make a unique sound, no explosives were used on 9/11 to damage the WTC complex, the terrorists did not use explosives, they use planes. In 1993 explosives were used, those guys got caught.

Simile fails to be evidence for explosives. There is no evidence on any steel due to explosives.

Someone said it sounded like a train, thus a train caused the WTC damage. Simile....

No one on 9/11 witnessed explosives being used to damage the WTC. No one. Thus comparing sounds of falling building, exploding transformers, falling bodies to a hit and run we see happen, and then we are told we did not see what we see; does not equate to loud sounds for evidence of explosives. The people who heard bodies, knew they were bodies. Quote mining witnesses, what they heard is not evidence for explosives.

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

What you need to claim it was explosives, evidence of blast damage on steel, damage to people from explosives, and stuff used to set off explosives. BTW, explosives would cook off in fire, unless we make up some more magical version of silent explosives which leave no evidence. There are no explosions from explosives in the video records, zero.
 
Last edited:

tinkertailor

Senior Member.
Here's what's wrong with your simile. Imagine you had actually witnessed a hit and run. But then later the authorities told you it was not a hit and run.

Everyone initially thought the buildings were blown up. This is very clear. It is criminally dishonest to claim that this is not the case.

It is like you witnessed the hit and run, and are now being told that you did not witness the hit and run.
First off--who says anyone "told him" otherwise? He was on the scene, he saw what he saw and he says very clearly in his testimony that when he looked up it looked like it was exploding. Just like all the other testimonies from people who were, you know, there when it happened unlike anyone here on this forum right now. Sure, we were 'told' that it was a terrorist attack, just like (I assume--forgive me if otherwise) you were 'told' by someone that it was a demo. We look at evidence and find nothing that points to it being a demo, you look at evidence and come to a different conclusion. That's fine. The point being that whether he was 'told otherwise' after the fact that it wasn't an explosion doesn't matter. Our point is that the fire marshal in AE911's quote no longer believes this, thus AE911 is being dishonest. Furthermore, they're twisting the words of a first responder to a national tragedy to further their agenda. That is messed up.
Secondly, if 'everyone' heard explosions, prove it. I see a handful of accounts that can easily be explained away as bodies hitting the ground or normal explosions of supplies in offices. We aren't saying they didn't think they heard explosions, we're saying the explosions are to be expected in this situation.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Moderator Note - deirdre
The topic of this thread is the BILLBOARD quote from the Fire Marshall. Anything else will be removed as off topic. Other witnesses,aside from firefighters, that 'heard' explosions (the Fire Marshall did not), any other evidence of 'explosions' etc should be directed to the appropriate thread.
 
Explosives make a unique sound
Moderator Note - deirdre
The topic of this thread is the BILLBOARD quote from the Fire Marshall. Anything else will be removed as off topic. Other witnesses,aside from firefighters, that 'heard' explosions (the Fire Marshall did not), any other evidence of 'explosions' etc should be directed to the appropriate thread.

Are you insane? The quote says 'everyone' so it's clearly not only about the fire marshall. I know it's off topic, but I think you should get a new job.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
TWCobra Pilots for 9/11 Truth-"Simulations" video debunked. 9/11 26
Joe Kerr Debunked: Pilots Doctors and Scientists tell Truth about Chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 66
TWCobra Debunked: Pilots for 9/11 truth WTC speeds 9/11 94
Mick West Debunked: Snowden uncovers shocking truth behind Chemtrails [Satire] Contrails and Chemtrails 4
Mick West Debunked: Crowder's "Fraud Week" Title Graphic (and Why it Matters) Election 2020 1
JFDee Debunked: Democratic senators complained about 'vote switching' by Dominion voting machines in 2019 Election 2020 2
Mendel Debunked: The Democrats are trying to take away freedom of religion Election 2020 6
H Debunked: Dr. Shiva's Scatterplot Analysis of Michigan Precincts Election 2020 35
Mick West Debunked: Suspicious "Biden Only" Ballots in Georgia Election 2020 3
Mick West Debunked: "Nancy Pelosi's long time Chief of Staff is a key executive at Dominion Voting" Election 2020 0
Mick West Debunked: Wisconsin Turnout 89% Impossible High [Actually 72%] Election 2020 1
Mick West Debunked: Video of Poll Worker "Filling In" Ballots. Election 2020 3
Mick West Debunked: Pentagon has Evidence of "Off-World Vehicles Not Made on this Earth" UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 14
derrick06 Debunked: United Nations creates a "NWO" website Conspiracy Theories 2
N Debunked: Google Mail icon shows linkage to Freemasons Conspiracy Theories 4
Mendel Debunked: The WHO did not take the Taiwan CDC seriously Coronavirus COVID-19 0
A Why 9/11 Truthers Are Wrong About The Facts | (Part 1 w/ Mick West) 9/11 1
Mendel Debunked: Radar Waves Affect Clouds General Discussion 0
Pumpernickel Need Debunking: Foucault's Pendulum debunked through Mach's principle (the Earth is a static object in the center of the Universe) Science and Pseudoscience 16
M Ufos arrive to the central zone of Chile. (Debunked). Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 0
Jesse3959 FE Debunked with water tube level - 187 foot building 21.2 miles away below eye level Flat Earth 0
H Debunked: Cadillac Mountain from 220 miles Flat Earth 7
Jesse3959 FE Claim Debunked: JTolan Epic Gravity Experiment - Flat earther disproves Perspective! (or his instruments.) Flat Earth 0
Mick West Debunked: DoD prepares for martial law in CONUS: Conspiracy Theories 0
Oystein Debunked: AE911T: CNBC Anchor Ron Insana claims Building 7 a Controlled Implosion 9/11 13
A Debunked: NASA tampered with the original television audio of the Apollo 11 moon landing Conspiracy Theories 1
Greylandra Debunked: media headline "Judea declares war on Germany" [boycott] Conspiracy Theories 20
Mick West Discovery Channel's "Contact: Declassified Breakthrough" was debunked 2.5 years ago UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 8
Joe Hill Debunked: "The North Face of Building 7 Was Pulled Inward" 9/11 66
A Debunked : Fake Set Moon Landing with TV Camera and Stairs Conspiracy Theories 3
Mick West Debunked: Photo with Sun Rays at Odd Angles Flat Earth 0
Staffan Debunked: Wikileaks releases unused footage of moon landing (Capricorn One movie scenes) Conspiracy Theories 2
Mick West Debunked: Neil deGrasse Tyson : "That Stuff is Flat" Flat Earth 10
Mendel Debunked: Air Map of the World 1945 is a flat Earth map Flat Earth 0
Trailblazer Debunked: Trees being cut down "because they block 5G" (tree replacement in Belgium) 5G and Other EMF Health Concerns 44
deirdre Debunked: Exemption from military service doc proves Jews had foreknowledge of WW2 (fake leaflet) General Discussion 0
Trailblazer Debunked: Obama called Michelle "Michael" in a speech. (Referring to Michael Mullen Jr) Quotes Debunked 0
Rory Debunked: 120-mile shot of San Jacinto proves flat earth Flat Earth 39
Rory Debunked: The Lunar Cycle affects birth rates Health and Quackery 26
Rory Debunked: Study shows link between menstrual cycle and the moon Health and Quackery 30
novatron Debunked: California Wildfires Match the Exactly Path of the Proposed Rail System Wildfires 3
Rory Debunked: "You must love yourself before you love another" - fake Buddha quote Quotes Debunked 7
W Debunked: Qanon claims there have been 51k sealed indictments filed this year. Current Events 11
K Debunked: Audio of David Rockefeller "leaked" speech in 1991 [Audio Simulation] General Discussion 2
tadaaa Debunked: Fake photos-Novichok attack Russian 'agents' (side by side gates) General Discussion 34
Mick West Debunked: XYO Device Replacing GPS, Saving $2 Million a Day General Discussion 23
Mick West Debunked: "Tip Top" as a QAnon Clue from Trump [He's said it before] Conspiracy Theories 5
Whitebeard Debunked: Nibiru FOUND? Mysterious gigantic rogue planet spotted lurking outside our solar system Science and Pseudoscience 1
Mick West Debunked: "There Exists a Shadowy Government" — Daniel Inouye Quotes Debunked 0
Mick West Debunked: Delta Lambda Compression General Discussion 16
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top