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
Marc Powell Debunked: 9/11 truth experts are knowledgeable professionals and their judgments are to be trusted 9/11 195
Rory Debunked: Einstein wrote "blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth" Quotes Debunked 12
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 67
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
Oystein Debunked: Gibraltar cancels Christmas Coronavirus COVID-19 5
Mythic Suns [Debunked] Viral internet meme indirectly claiming that Greenland has already fully melted. Science and Pseudoscience 6
T AiG Debunked: Fossils Fail to Find Major Transition From Dinosaurs to Birds Science and Pseudoscience 10
Rory Debunked: UK undertaker's claim that Covid vaccine is responsible for spike in deaths Coronavirus COVID-19 7
Marc Powell Debunked: Explosions preparatory to demolition of the WTC North Tower are visible as Flight 175 crashes into the South Tower 9/11 7
Mick West Debunked: Pfizer Developing a Twice-Per-Day COVID Pill, Taken Alongside Vaccines Coronavirus COVID-19 0
Marc Powell Debunked: Demolition “squib” is visible at top of WTC North Tower before Flight 11 crash 9/11 67
Marc Powell Debunked: Construction worker Philip Morelli experienced an explosion in the sub-basement of the North Tower 9/11 0
Marc Powell Debunked: ABC News correspondent George Stephanopoulos reported an explosion in the subway 9/11 1
Marc Powell Debunked: Debris from twin towers was projected upward by explosives 9/11 13
Marc Powell Debunked: Government officials revealed having foreknowledge of Building 7’s collapse 9/11 58
Marc Powell Debunked: NIST computer simulation of Building 7 collapse is inaccurate 9/11 22
Marc Powell Debunked: FEMA reported finding evidence that steel had melted. 9/11 47
Marc Powell Debunked: VP Dick Cheney ordered a standdown of jet fighters on 9/11 9/11 16
Oystein Debunked: Claim that Bobby McIlvaine's injuries ("lacerations") are best explained as result of glass shards and debris from bombs 9/11 22
Marc Powell Debunked: World Trade Center should not have collapsed due to 9/11 fires 9/11 3
Marc Powell Debunked: Firefighter reports of secondary explosions 9/11 3
Marc Powell Debunked: Steel was hurled hundreds of feet by explosives 9/11 4
Marc Powell Debunked: Demolition Explosion Before Collapse of South Tower 9/11 8
Marc Powell Debunked: Explosion in South Tower Lobby 9/11 7
Marc Powell Debunked: Mysterious Explosion Before the Flight 11 Crash 9/11 48
J.d.K Debunked: Marx: "The classes and the races too weak to master the new conditions must give way... They must perish in the revolutionary Holocaust" Quotes Debunked 0
dimebag2 Poll : Which DOD Navy video do you consider debunked ? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 74
Mick West Debunked: Diving Triangle UFO Photos from Reddit [Fake] UFOs and Aliens 37
Theferäl [Debunked] Object Seen From Airplane Above Canberra: 04 Apr 2012 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 5
TEEJ Debunked: Claim that Joe Biden's hand passes through microphone during White House press gaggle, 16th March 2021 Election 2020 9
bird_up Debunked: "Interdimensional being" caught on CCTV in Neza, Mexico Ghosts, Monsters, and the Paranormal 6
M Debunked: Atmospheric pressure on Mars is 9 PSI, not 0.09 PSI as claimed by NASA Science and Pseudoscience 76
Patrick Gonzalez Debunked: missing cable on Perseverance landing footage proves it is fake. General Discussion 3
TEEJ Debunked: Biden's Oval Office "Coming Apart at the Seams" [It's a Door] Election 2020 19
derrick06 Debunked: UFO over California Highway (TMZ) UFOs and Aliens 1
P Debunked: 7 Alleged photos of aliens UFOs and Aliens 9
Mick West Debunked: Biden signing "Blank" Executive Orders Election 2020 5
Mick West Debunked: Biden in "Fake" Oval Office Election 2020 27
P Debunked: UN hidden camera: the first UFO contact happened [Deep Fake] UFOs and Aliens 3
Mick West Debunked: 94% of Fulton County Ballots Manually Adjudicated [It's a Process all Batches go Through] Election 2020 0
Mick West Debunked: "Missile Strike" caused Nashville Explosion General Discussion 3
Mick West Debunked: Nashville Explosion was "Across the Street" from the RV General Discussion 0
Mick West Debunked: "Error rate of 68.5% Allowable is .0008%" [Neither is True] Election 2020 4
Mick West Debunked: Claim that the Electoral College Count On Jan 6 will Change the Election Election 2020 136
Mick West Debunked: Navid Keshavarz-Nia's Claims of "A Sudden Rise in Slope" as Election Fraud Evidence Election 2020 5
Mick West Debunked: Trump's Claim of "1,126,940 votes created out of thin air" in PA Election 2020 9
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
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top