Firefighters for 9-11: Evidence of Controlled Demolitions

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Grock

 

So why does the firefighter only mention "small fires" on floor 78? I suppose the fires on the floors well above the impact floor were all faked?
This is just another piece of proof of you folks taking one thing out of context and using this a proof of whatever (demolition bombs/thermite/thermobaric bombs/pixy dust).

Lets put this back into context ok?
A firefighter reaches the 78th floor and reports small fires easy to extinguish. Now, the firefighter has no clue as to what is going on a few floors above him. He reaches the impact zone and sees the small pockets of fire, when we see on the floors above, entire sections of the WTC on fire. This indicates fire has spread up and away from the impact zone floor.

I don't know what time he reached it but we can only assume a firefighter geared up, climbing 78 floors, will take a while to reach the impacted zone. The people evacuating also made it longer for them to reach the affected zone. During the time it took for them to reach the 78th floor, the fires have already spread to the upper floors. By the time he reaches the 78th floor, the building collapses.

please tell me that you arent going off my post alone, but that you have completely observed the link and everything it entails, and then are disputing me right?

please?

right?

posted by GenRadek
So why does the firefighter only mention "small fires" on floor 78? I suppose the fires on the floors well above the impact floor were all faked?
This is just another piece of proof of you folks taking one thing out of context and using this a proof of whatever (demolition bombs/thermite/thermobaric bombs/pixy dust).

Lets put this back into context ok?
A firefighter reaches the 78th floor and reports small fires easy to extinguish. Now, the firefighter has no clue as to what is going on a few floors above him. He reaches the impact zone and sees the small pockets of fire, when we see on the floors above, entire sections of the WTC on fire. This indicates fire has spread up and away from the impact zone floor.

I don't know what time he reached it but we can only assume a firefighter geared up, climbing 78 floors, will take a while to reach the impacted zone. The people evacuating also made it longer for them to reach the affected zone. During the time it took for them to reach the 78th floor, the fires have already spread to the upper floors. By the time he reaches the 78th floor, the building collapses.

posted by Grock
please tell me that you arent going off my post alone, but that you have completely observed the link and everything it entails, and then are disputing me right?

please?

right?

No, the debunkers and pseudoskeptics and disinfo agents never concentrate on the whole entirety of evidence, but single out solitary instances, set up like strawman arguments or red herrings, and attempt to tear those parts of the whole to shreds in a dishonest contest of disinformation.

Originally posted by SPreston

posted by GenRadek

No, the debunkers and pseudoskeptics and disinfo agents never concentrate on the whole entirety of evidence, but single out solitary instances, set up like strawman arguments or red herrings, and attempt to tear those parts of the whole to shreds in a dishonest contest of disinformation.

Wow, funny you mention that!

I was thinking the same thing about you guys.

You know what, I'm going to forward you here to show you how you just described yourself and the whole "Truther" bandwagon:
www.911myths.com...
Heh, seems to me you guys are the ones doing this to a T.

[edit on 12/6/2008 by GenRadek]

reply to post by Grock


yes this is off your post alone.

HOWEVER:
After going to your link, all I find is the same old rehash of roboposted questions and "observations" and assumptions that have already been picked clean and debunked years ago.
Barry Jennings, the Empire State Building "comparison", jet fuel burned off fast, steel had to melt to bring about collapse, the "isolated pockets of fire on the 78th floor, etc.
This site is just rife with the same old nonsense with really angry videos from Youtube.
Plus I just love the quotes at the bottom all taken out of context. I mean, come on. Do I have to go back and put everything back into context with the actual comments in FULL? Geeze you guys are messy. I have to keep cleaning up the messes.
If you or anyone genuinely interested in the actual context of the quotes seen in the OP's link, look here:
www.nytimes.com...

One common thread I notice, is that when the comments are read in full and in context, the firefighters and eyewitnesses all are referring to the collapse of the Towers and how it looks. How else should a building collapse look like? And watching from every angle of each collapse, how would you be able to tell the difference between an explosion and a building collapsing when it was on fire? Plus I didn;t see any explosions prior to collapse. Remember "sounded like an explosion" =/= bombs.

great examples of cherry picking quotes and making strawman arguments by the so called "truters" can be found here:
www.911myths.com...

Also, if there were "bombs" going off, maybe you can explain to me why the exterior columns of both towers bent inwards prior to collapse. What explosives cause beams to bend and buckle inwards prior to collapse?

[edit on 12/6/2008 by GenRadek]

Originally posted by GenRadek
You know what, I'm going to forward you here to show you how you just described yourself and the whole "Truther" bandwagon:
www.911myths.com...
Heh, seems to me you guys are the ones doing this to a T.

I don't trust a website that manipulates videos.



www.abovetopsecret.com...

Whew...you talk about stirring the pot. I too have seen footage from the building designer speaking on this point. This interview took place like 10 years before the demolition of the towers, and I would bet that this guy still stands by it...

Well, you would be wrong then. Mr. Skilling has given numerous interviews in the last seven years and accepts that it was the collision of two airliners and the resulting fires that took down the Towers.

reply to post by Griff


Then find the original posting by Mr. Spak. It matches what was posted on 911myths, so if there was any altering, it happened prior to it being posted on 911myths.

And reading the website posted by the OP....it is full of the same lies and misleading statements that have fueled the so-called truth movement. My heart continues to go out to the families that lost loved ones that day, even more so to the families that are being taken in by the lies liked posted on that site.

reply to post by Griff


Heh, then I would suggest you don't go and read a good 99% of 9/11 Truth sites. Manipulations are the "Truthers" expertise. I posted their site to point out all the lovely manipulations the truthers are doing to further their lies. And I really don't see how this site did any video manipulations.

Why do we have to resort to "you guys are liers"? Personally, it seems to me that eyewitness evidence by highly professional people should be looked at and listened to. Whats wrong with that? Just because their testimony doesnt gell with what you believe does not make it wrong, it makes it available as one more piece to a very convoluted and at times contrary puzzle...

[edit on 8-12-2008 by Grock]

reply to post by GenRadek

Heh, then I would suggest you don't go and read a good 99% of 9/11 Truth sites. Manipulations are the "Truthers" expertise. I posted their site to point out all the lovely manipulations the truthers are doing to further their lies. And I really don't see how this site did any video manipulations.

Are you saying all truthers are lairs?
Are you saying all truthers are manipulators?

How can “you” call people truthers, when you think they are the lairs?

If you are going to claim that any evidence is not true then instead of just saying it, show how it isn't true. Post a link to a thread where the topic was already discussed or if it hasn't been discussed then provide the evidence.

Otherwise, everyone should discuss the topic while being courteous to other members. Thank you.

Courtesy Is Mandatory

Any further rude remarks or off topic posts will be removed.

reply to post by Grock


Of course eyewitness accounts should always be considered. However, what is more important that we get the entire account from the person, instead of a carefully cut out sentence that taken alone, means something completely different. Which is why I stand by my claim of how many truther sites that use eyewitness accounts nearly always manipulate and extract certain sentences that suggest something sinister (ie bombs, explosions, planted explosives) but in reality when the entire qoute is read, it does NO such thing. Once again the site I posted and the first hand eyewitness accounts give the accounts as was told. Compare them to the manipulated accounts on that "firefighters for 9-11 evidence" site. You will notice most, if not, all of those quotes have been manipulated to further the "truther" agenda.

reply to post by cashlink


Well, the majority of the sites I see that push these things are lying, or at least twisting the hell out of comments, quotes, and other evidence. So in my eyes and based on my actual researching the eyewitness accounts word for word direct from the sources, I see that it is the "Truthers" that are doing the lying. However, those that just go and read it and never hear or see the actual quotes, and then regurgitate it are not liars, just misinformed. Those that regurgitae it after being told 100x that the comments they referr to are under false pretexts, or out of context, and refuse to acknowledge it, are either lying, or.......

Plus if you notice, I put truthers in parenthesis, hence the "truthers". On one hand you have those that are genuinely interested in finding the truth (ie truthers), on the other you have those that are not interested in the truth, and more in the "truth"(ie "Truthers"). Their version of "truth" is based on misconceptions, distortions, manipulations, preconcieved notions, false ideas and lies. Any actual truth told to them is unnacceptable, and is only acceptable when it fits with their version of "truth". And ther are those stuck in the middle who don;t know better, and listen to the "truthers" and just parrot what they hear.

A good majority of "truthers" I see are just that: manipulators.

reply to post by GenRadek

Well, the majority of the sites I see that push these things are lying, or at least twisting the hell out of comments, quotes, and other evidence.

It is your “opinion” they are lying, then why don’t you simply illustrate what they are lying about, and show your sources. Instead of just making bizarre comments with out any proof. So when we see a videos of a Firemen who were there on 911 and making statements as to seeing and hearing explosions, dose that mean the Firemen are lying?

So in my eyes and based on my actual researching the eyewitness accounts word for word direct from the sources, I see that it is the "Truthers" that are doing the lying.

Wow! Truthers are the lairs, would you care to demonstrate how they are lying?
Why would they lie what’s in it for them?

However, those that just go and read it and never hear or see the actual quotes, and then regurgitate it are not liars, just misinformed.

Wow! You can tell, us who didn’t see those actual quotes, or even hear them?

Those that regurgitae it after being told 100x that the comments they referr to are under false pretexts, or out of context, and refuse to acknowledge it, are either lying, or.......

Who has told whom a hundred times that their comments are under false pretexts?
We are talking about the Firemen right?

Plus if you notice, I put truthers in parenthesis, hence the "truthers".

Wow! So you label them.

On one hand you have those that are genuinely interested in finding the truth (ie truthers), on the other you have those that are not interested in the truth, and more in the "truth"(ie "Truthers").

Wow! And you know who, is who, when you do all this labeling of the different people who are suppose to be looking for the truth.

Their version of "truth" is based on misconceptions, distortions, manipulations, preconcieved notions, false ideas and lies.

Wow! And you are a psychiatrist and you know all these people to make such a claim.

Any actual truth told to them is unnacceptable, and is only acceptable when it fits with their version of "truth".

Wow! And you know what the truth is. Do you think the Firemen are telling the truth that they saw and heard explosions?

And ther are those stuck in the middle who don;t know better, and listen to the "truthers" and just parrot what they hear.

Really! And you have proof of all this?

A good majority of "truthers" I see are just that: manipulators.

Wow! That is a strong comment to make about people who are looking for the truth. Do you think the Firemen that told people they heard, and saw explosions, are manipulators?
If you do believe they are manipulators, could you please demonstrate as to how?

reply to post by GenRadek

You will notice most, if not, all of those quotes have been manipulated to further the "truther" agenda.

Please show proofs, to support your statement that people who are looking for the truth are manipulators, and they have an agenda. However, if you cannot then please retract your ridiculous comment. How dose this have anything to do with Firemen witnessing explosions

reply to post by cashlink


I already did. Please read the links I provided and judge for yourself how the firefighters comments and others have been taken out of context to mean something sinister. I gave you a link to the original comments and accounts and I gave you the link that shows how many times their accounts have been manipulated. Hell, check out the "Fire-fighters for 9-11" site, read the firefighter comments they provide and then read the entire account which it was taken from. It is not my opinion. Its a fact. The "Truther" sites are lying by manipulation of eyewitness accounts. I gave you the links and the sources, look them up if you do not believe me.

Here are the manipulated quotes:
firefightersfor911truth.org...
Here are the original sources frm which they came:
graphics8.nytimes.com...

When you quote somebody and only use certain parts of the quote in order to suggest an occurance, when in reality by reading the entire quote and no such thing is being suggested, what does that make you?

Here is a lovely example of it:
From the FF for 9/11 site: firefightersfor911truth.org...
DEPUTY ASSISTANT CHIEF ALBERT TURI, F.D.N.Y.:

“The next thing I heard was Pete (F.D.N.Y. Chief of Department Pete Ganci) say ‘What the # is this?’ And as my eyes traveled up the building, and I was looking at the south tower, somewhere about halfway up, my initial reaction was there was a secondary explosion, and the entire floor area, a ring right around the building blew out.”

Ok that is his quote from the "truther" site. Now what is it suggesting? that there were "explosions" and floors being blown out right? And this somehow is evidence of "demolition charges". Ok now let us read his enite quote exact from the source:
www.nytimes.com...

The next thing I heard was Pete say what the
# is this? And as my eyes traveled up the building, and I
was looking at the south tower,
somewhere about halfway up, my initial reaction was there
was a secondary explosion, and the entire floor area, a
ring right around the building blew out. i later realized
that the building had started to collapse already and this
was the ai:r being compressed and that is the floor that
let go. And as my eyes traveled further up the building, I
realized that this building was collapsing and I turned
around and most everybody was ahead of me running for the
garage, and I remember thinking I looked at this thing a
little bit too long and I might not make this garage. But I
dio.

Ok, so when we read the complete quote of his account, it was his INITIAL reaction that there was a secondary explosion, but he realizes later that it was the building collapsing and that was the air being forced out. Huh. Big difference. So I guess that "truther" site shouls scratch his account because when taken in full context, he provides no evidence of anything "explosive" or "demolition".
But hey, I don't have to hold your hand, you can do this yourself. Read the "evidence" by the "truther" site and their quotes, then read the actual quotes in full. Once again, the "truthers" are lying and manipulating. They are being dishonest.

[edit on 12/10/2008 by GenRadek]

[edit on 12/10/2008 by GenRadek]

reply to post by cashlink


I'll give you another example here too!
From the "truther" site quote:

F.D.N.Y. BATTALION CHIEF BRIAN DIXON:

“I was watching the fire, watching the people jump and hearing a noise and looking up and seeing - it actually looked - the lowest floor of fire in the south tower actually looked like someone had planted explosives around it because the whole bottom I could see - I could see two sides of it and the other side - it just looked like that floor blew out. I looked up and you could actually see everything blew out on the one floor. I thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up there, it blew out.”

Wow that should be damning evidence for CD right? I mean those are his words! He said it it must be true! Not so fast. Lets read he rest of his account found here:

I was watching the fire, watching the people
jump and hearing a noise and looking up and seeing -- it actually
looked -- the lowest floor of fire in the south tower actually
looked like someone had planted explosives around it because the
whole bottom I could see óó I could see two sides of it and the
other side óó it just looked like that floor blew out.

I looked up and you could actually see
everything blew out on the one floor. I thought, geez, this
looks like an explosion up there, it blew out. Then I guess in some sense of time we looked at it and realized, no, actually it just collapsed. Thatis what blew out the windows, not that there was an explosion there but that the windows blew out.The realization hit that itís going to
fall down, the topís coming off. I was still
thinking -- there was never a thought that this whole thing is
coming down. I thought that that blew out and stuff is starting
to fly down. The top is going to topple off there.

Ah hah! Now, if the "truther" site was interested in telling the truth, then why would it omit the crucial text just after what they posted?
You see, I could sit here all day or even make a new thread that goes through every single quote used by the "truthers" as "evidence" for CD or whatever, and fill in all the omitted text that puts things back into perspective and shows how manipulation is all the "truthers" have to bolter their claims.

reply to post by GenRadek


Are you for real? You have not proved anything only how you dislike what some firefighters have to say, most of this is “your” opinions. You need to take a pill and chill man! I have not seen any statement you have presented that’s has been manipulated.

I would take the word of the firemen before I would the Governments. The Government is not experts about fire however, the firemen are. Why would the firemen lie? Do they want to be fired from their jobs? Do they want to destroy their own reputations as firemen? GenRadek, why do you continue to defend the Government (lies) stories?
Look around you, most people in here will disagree with you. Most people have reliesed our Government has “lied” to us and they are holding the evidences that will incriminate them. LOL the Government will not even give us the evidences to prove their own stories.

reply to post by cashlink


Ah, I see that what I have written has zipped well above your head.
I'll make it simpler then:
I do not dispute what the firefighters said. HOWEVER I don't like the fact how the "truther" site presents the edited quotes with key parts missing in order to perpetuate the false idea of "controlled demolition. Did you even bother reading what I wrote, or do you have a little trouble understanding what I wrote?
Go back to my comments, re-read them, then get back to me. Apparently you are having a little difficulty with what was said, so if you don't get it, just admit it. I'll be happy to make it simpler.
I'll repeat it one more time for you:
I do no dispute what the firefighters said. HOWEVER, I do not like the fact that the original comments were cut, manipulated, and edited in such a way to insinuate something that is totally and completely false. I provided two instances of quotes that were edited or had key parts left out BY THE "TRUTHER" SITE so they can perpetuate the CD myth. The firefighters are not lying, its the author of the "truther" site that is leaving out KEY PARTS of the quote that disprove what the author WANTS you to believe. He is misleading you. He is lying to you. He is decieving you! And you jut sit there and think its God's truth because the "firefighters" said it. Well why don't you read the entire comment of the firefighter, one that is uncut, unedited, and unmolested, and see how you have been tricked by the "truther".