I looked into his website and it is nothing more than a rehash of the same old 9/11 truther nonsense that can be found across the world wide web word for word. Same old videos, same old junk, same old lies and twists and misinfo and disinfo.

I guess you didnt know but if you take a few thousand people at random, you will always get a few who get suckered in to conspiracies or such. Of the millions of engineers a few hundred is a just small fraction. Of the thousands of firefighters, there will ALWAYS be a few who are just as easily suckered into the nonsense. No surprises really.

Originally posted by GenRadek
I looked into his website and it is nothing more than a rehash of the same old 9/11 truther nonsense that can be found across the world wide web word for word. Same old videos, same old junk, same old lies and twists and misinfo and disinfo.

One thing I think we can both agree on , is that 911 was a horrific day, of
Epic proportions on US soil.

Why didn't the Most Horrific Day have called for the most Intensive
Investigation ever in US history.

He CLEARLY states what Procedure is in even the least, non lethal, house fire.

911 didn't even garner that much of a investigation.

The Most Basic Guidelines , were not implemented on that day.

A clear COVER UP was done on that day. To say any different is like
spitting on the graves of those Men who rushed in to save others, with
no regard to their own well being.

I hope you , and others who make a mockery of their deaths van sleep well.

Eric Lawyer is the founder of "Fire Fighters for 9-11 truth", and right on the front page of his web site, Lawyer writes:

"However, in short, the official explanation of the events of that day are not only insufficient, they are fantastic and cannot bear rational examination. We are asked to believe that on that day three structural steel buildings, which have never before in history collapsed because of fire, fell neatly into their basements at the speed of gravity, their concrete reduced to dust. We are asked to believe that jet fuel (kerosene) can melt steel. We are asked to believe that the most sophisticated air defense system in the world, that responded to sixty-eight emergencies in the year prior to 9-11 in less than twenty minutes allowed aircraft to wander about for up to an hour and a half. We are asked to believe that the steel and titanium components of an aircraft that supposedly hit the Pentagon “evaporated”. There is much, much more if anyone cares to look into it."

The steel was NOT melted, the towers did NOT fall neatly into their basements, the hijacked aircraft were NOT "allowed" to wander about, and the components of the aircraft that hit the Pentagon did NOT evaporate, . All of that has already been discussed and thoroughly debunked left, right, up, and down here. It's patently clear this guy isn't basing his position on his own professional fire fighting experience. He's basing it entirely upon the outrageous horse [censored] those damned fool conspiracy web sites are spoon feeding him. I can see right away this is what he's doing because he's repeating the exact same "never before in history" hyperbole they're putting out word for word.

Thus, he's simply repeating the incorrect information someone else repeated to him, and thus, his credibility is equally as low. Putting out false information is still putting out false information, regardless of what his credentials happen to be.

He is actually saying that the fireman's manual states that thermite is one accelerant that should be tested for in the case of a steel building collapse! that surely must be one the most important parts of his speech. Thermite is in that manual, yet is one of the most poo-hooed CT ideas. This is a whole new light on it for me.



[edit on 3-3-2010 by smurfy]

Eric Lawyer-Firefighter-911 was a Criminal Coverup

Hello Eric...

Where were you on 911?

Where is your evidence?

What members of the FDNY have you spoken to ... in person.

You are a disgrace to the brothers that lost their lives on 911.

"You are a disgrace to the brothers that lost their lives on 911."

The only ones who are a disgrace here are the ones who degrade and spit on the brave people who risk their lives on a moment's notice to save people.

Originally posted by smurfy
He is actually saying that the fireman's manual states that thermite is one accelerant that should be tested for in the case of a steel building collapse! that surely must be one the most important parts of his speech. Thermite is in that manual, yet is one of the most poo-hooed CT ideas. This is a whole new light on it for me.



[edit on 3-3-2010 by smurfy]

Can you or anyone please show me that the fireman's manual states that thermite should be tested for in the case of a steel building collapse ? Thanks.

Originally posted by Sean48

Nice try on the Deflection Dave.

Lets talk about the OP, Shall we?

I thought we WERE talkign about the OP. I am pointing out this fire fighter is basing his efforts entirely upon the false information these damned fool web sites are feeding him. The fact that the fuels did NOT melt the steel has already been discussed 5,000 times already here and I know you've seen them. Not the NIST report, not the FEMA report, and not even the MIT report, even once claimed the fuel fires melted the steel. This "fires melted the steel" bit is coming 100% from those damned fool conspiracy sites so his claiming that "we're expected to believe that the fuel fires melted the steel" is UNDENIABLY FALSE INFORMATION, regardless of whether you wish to brush it off as being deflection or not.

Why on the worst day , was protocal not followed.

That should be self evident. It was a completely brand new event for everyone, so everyone was running around in circles and stumbling into walls wondering what to do and how to proceed. Even the 9/11 report documents how orders weren't being conveyed, how departments refused to share information with each other, and how people had failed in their responsibilities. You would have known that already if you had read it.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Sean48

Nice try on the Deflection Dave.

Lets talk about the OP, Shall we?

I thought we WERE talkign about the OP. I am pointing out this fire fighter is basing his efforts entirely upon the false information these damned fool web sites are feeding him. The fact that the fuels did NOT melt the steel has already been discussed 5,000 times already here and I know you've seen them. Not the NIST report, not the FEMA report, and not even the MIT report, even once claimed the fuel fires melted the steel. This "fires melted the steel" bit is coming 100% from those damned fool conspiracy sites so his claiming that "we're expected to believe that the fuel fires melted the steel" is UNDENIABLY FALSE INFORMATION, regardless of whether you wish to brush it off as being deflection or not.

You said twice , "those damn fool conspiracy sites"

He is READING out of a Procedure Manual, why is that hard for you?

Lets stay on the OP, Procedure failures, to hide eveidence.

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by smurfy
He is actually saying that the fireman's manual states that thermite is one accelerant that should be tested for in the case of a steel building collapse! that surely must be one the most important parts of his speech. Thermite is in that manual, yet is one of the most poo-hooed CT ideas. This is a whole new light on it for me.



[edit on 3-3-2010 by smurfy]

Can you or anyone please show me that the fireman's manual states that thermite should be tested for in the case of a steel building collapse ? Thanks.

I believe its NFPA 921. Generally not available on line.

"Can you or anyone please show me that the fireman's manual states that thermite should be tested for in the case of a steel building collapse ?"

Better yet, can you please show me a competent professional arson investigator who fails to test for known accelerants after three building fires and collapses? Obviously, the purpose for a complete and thorough arson investigation is to determine the cause of fire and/or collapse of a structure.

Since arson and intentional acts are not covered in an insurance policy, insurers pay big bucks to hire the best experts in the business to test for these sort of things. So it was not only the Fire Department which did not do an adequate investigation for such accelerants, the insurance carriers also turned a blind eye. What a surprise.

From NFPA 921:

“A document that is advisory or informative in nature and that contains only nonmandatory provisions. A guide may contain mandatory statements such as when a guide can be used, but the document as a whole is not suitable for adoption into law.”

In Section 1.2.1, NFPA 921 states that, “The purpose of this document is to establish guidelines and recommendations for the safe and systematic investigation or analysis of fire and explosion incidents.... This document has been developed as a model for the advancement and practice of fire and explosion investigation, fire science, technology, and methodology.” Section 1.3.2 further states, “As every fire and explosion is in some way different and unique from any other, this document is not designed to encompass all of the necessary components of a complete
investigation or analysis of any one case.” Not every portion of this document may be applicable to every fire or explosion incident. It is up to investigators (depending on their responsibility, as
well as the purpose and scope of their investigation) to apply the appropriate recommended procedures in this guide to a particular incident.” The document is applicable to both fire and explosion incidents. It is also applicable to fire scene examinations and the fire analysis phase of investigations after the fire scene is no longer available.


Bolding mine.

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal

Better yet, can you please show me a competent professional arson investigator who fails to test for known accelerants after three building fires and collapses? Obviously, the purpose for a complete and thorough arson investigation is to determine the cause of fire and/or collapse of a structure.

Better yet - show me a competent arson investigtor who goes looking for "Exotic Accelerants" after the said investigator watches over and over again a huge commmercial jetliner crash into the building and explode.

Originally posted by smurfy
Hi Dave, I thought he was referring to WT7 falling into the basement.

When he says "three structural steel buildings" he is referring to all of them, not just WTC 7...but as for WTC 7, on his web site he does go on to say-

"Trade Tower #7 by itself is the “smoking gun”. Not hit by an aircraft, with only a few relatively small fires, it came down in a classic crimp and implosion, going straight into its basement, something only very precise demolition can accomplish, which takes days if not weeks to prepare. The 9-11 Commission didn’t even mention it, and F.E.M.A. actually stated they DIDN’T KNOW WHY IT COLLAPSED AND LEFT IT AT THAT."

First, the 9/11 commission DID mention the collapse of WTC 7, it's just that they didn't examine why it or any of the other towers fell becuase that's not what the commission was set up to do. It was to examine who committed the attack and how they did it. Second, the fires were NOT "relatively small". Photos and video of the raging fires in WTC 7 have already been posted here time and time again. Third, FEMA did NOT "leave it at that" becuase they left it to future investigations (which turned out to be NIST) to determine why WTC 7 fell. Fourth, his claiming WTC 7 as a "smoking gun" is yet more hyperbole he's repeating verbatim from those damned fool web sites. It's only a "smoking gun" if you're out to insist some conspiracy is afoot to begin with. How much more do you need to show this guy does NOT know what the heck he's talkign about?

All he's doing is simply repeating the rubbish those damned fool web sites are spoon feeding him, which means he isn't doign this in the capacity of a fire fighter's professional opinion. He's doing it in the capacity of his own personal uninformed nonprofessional opinion, so he doesn't have any more credibility than any of the other conspiracy theorists spreading this baloney around.

I invite you to point out anywhere in the FEMA, NIST, or MIT report that says "fires melted the steel" to prove me wrong.