Eric Lawyer-Firefighter-911 was a Criminal Coverup

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by Dogdish
So; you ask for proof of the molten metal and I give you a video of steel being cut in the tower just prior to collapse

Except you have not given any video of steel being cut in the tower prior to collapse....

and a link to an ATS thread showing pictures of the melted cars.

Not melted, burnt...

I reply with proof that they had, in fact, NOT been 'moved there',

No you did not actually, and they were moved there...

and you come back with "beam weapons from space". Implying that this was my point.

Well, you post a link to a website that has a link to the claim beam weapons were used.... why post the link if you did not want the beam weapons mentioned?

I think you are very obviously trying to hide from the truth.

except once again you are the avoiding the truth, claiming beam weapons were used...

Take the time to watch the video. If you have ever cut through steel with an acetylene torch, it's obvious.

The cars were melted. Obvious.

The cars have not been moved. Obvious.

I posted a link, that had a link... ? Phew. Pretty Obvious.

"except once again you are the avoiding the truth, claiming beam weapons were used..."

... OBVIOUS.

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
"This constant rambling about such nonsense has finally bought him his ignore ticket."

He'd be the last guy I'd put on ignore, since he makes for some great entertainment. I can't even keep track of the number of times I have laughed hysterically out loud at his replies.

That was where I was at until he got stuck on the beam weapons track. I hate a skipping cd. All Dereks has offered up for the last weak is crap about beam weapons. No matter what is being discussed or what point is made or what question is asked, he tosses beam weapons at us. It got old.

reply to post by Sean48


he speaks the Truth !!!!!!!!

reply to post by Sean48


he speaks the Truth !!!!!!!!

"No matter what is being discussed or what point is made or what question is asked, he tosses beam weapons at us."

Maybe he has a Scotty (Star Trek) fetish.

Originally posted by Lunchman

Huh - based on your statement, one would think that in it's self would be a good reason to take another look at the investigation...?

Well of course! The "we don't want another investigation" bit is yet another ridiculous lie that these damned fool conspiracy web sites are pushing out to get people all paranoid over shadows. Go ahead and have as many investigations as you want, as far as I'm concerned. We pretty well know what made the Titanic sank but the subsequent investigations visits to the site have revealed a lot of facts we didn't know before. The 9/11 attack is by far one of the most important events in American history and it warrants more examination.

The problem isn't with having more investigations. The problem is that the truther movement is infested with hordes of conspiracy fetishists who are so madly in love with the idea the gov't is out to murder us all that they simply will NOT accept there can't be a conspiracy behind it, and will therefore never accept any investigation that doesn't rubberstamp them. You can see right way that despite their insistance the 9/11 attack is "blatantly a conspiracy" they're all but getting into fistfights amongst themselves over what the "blatantly a conspiracy" actually is.

Imagine, for example, an investigation turned up some incompetent dope in the gov't who had a warning of an imminent terrorist attack he received the day before 9/11 that was lying forgotten underneath a pizza box in his office. Do you really think the conspiracy fetishists would accept the attack as an end result of severe gross incompetence, or do you think they'll think THAT is yet more disinformation to cover up the "blatantly a conspiracy"?

You know the answer to that and so do I.


[edit on 4-3-2010 by GoodOlDave]

reply to post by smurfy

One thing that is a mystery to me is the blast damage done in the lobby at WTC1. There are the broken tiles and windows as reported, and also there is soot, so some kind of flame or burn is also involved. To blow out the windows and demolish the tiles means there also has to be a blast or shockwave event. This could not have come from a kerosene flame reaching down from the 94th floor, all that there would be is flame, if at all possble. Any shockwave in front of a flame should have been dissapated nearer the point of ignition ie, the 94th floor. This makes me think that the only way a blast effect in the lobby could have been caused by kerosene, is that unburnt fuel was ignited somehow near or at the lobby level, and that it was the ignition of the kerosene at that point that created a blast, or shockwave, enough to cause the blast damage as reported. I have difficulty seeing that scenario reported anywhere

North Tower lobby




Was fuel-air explosion aka DEFLGRATION. Jet Fuel poured into elevator
shaft and flowed down to the lobby/basement levels. The fall caused the
fuel to aerosolize - break into fine mist. The fuel-air mist was ignited
(plenty of ignition sources around). The blast blew down the shaft and
out the elevator openings.

There were numerous burn casualties in the lobby/basement and even out
into the street from the fireball.

One of the Naudet brothers and the first arrving firemen reported seeing
several burned victims (dead) near the elevator shafts

Firefighter John Morabito of ladder 10, which is just 200 yards from the north tower.
“Just inside the front entrance, Morabito found two victims of the fireball. A man, already dead, was pushed against a wall, his clothes gone, his eyeglasses blackened, his tongue lying on the floor next to him. The other was a woman, with no clothes, her hair burned off, her eyes sealed.

“The woman, she sat up. I’m yelling to her, ‘Don’t worry, we’re going to help you,’” Morabito said. “She sat up and was trying to talk, but her throat had closed up. She died right there.” www.fdnytenhouse.com...

Lobby & 3rd floor: Firefighter Peter Blaich
As we got to the third floor of the B stairway, we forced open an elevator door which was burnt on all three sides. The only thing that was remaining was the hoistway door. And inside the elevator were about I didn’t recognize them initially, but a guy from 1 Truck said oh my God, those are people. They were pretty incinerated. And I remember the overpowering smell of kerosene. That’s when Lieutenant Foti said oh, that’s the jet fuel. I remember it smelled like if you’re camping and you drop a kerosene lamp.

The same thing happened to the elevators in the main lobby. They were basically blown out. I do’nt recall if I actually saw people in there. What got me initially in the lobby was that as soon as we went in, all the windows were blown out, and there were one or two burning cars outside. And there were burn victims on the street there, walking around. We walked through this giant blown-out window into the lobby.

There was a lady there screaming that she didn’t know how she got burnt. She was just in the lobby and then next thing she knew she was on fire. She was burnt bad. And somebody came over with a fire extinguisher and was putting water on her.

That’s the first thing that got me. That and in front of one of the big elevator banks in the lobby was a desk and I definitely made out one of the corpses to be a security guard because he had a security label on his jacket. I’m assuming that maybe he was at a table still in a chair and almost completely incinerated, charred all over his body, definitely dead. And you could make out like a security tag on his jacket. And I remember seeing the table was melted, but he was still fused in the chair and that elevator bank was melted, so I imagine the jet fuel must have blown right down the elevator shaft and I guess caught the security guard at a table, I guess at some type of checkpoint. www.firehouse.com...

Brian Reeves, a 34-year-old security guard, was nearly killed while making the rounds in the lobby of 1 World Trade Center on September 11. He started to run after hearing an explosion that he said sounded like a missile, but he was knocked down by a fireball that roared down the elevator shaft.

Reeves suffered third-degree burns to 40 percent of his body before he was able to pat out the flames. He was one of 20 critically-injured patients rushed to New York Presbyterian’s burn unit that day. www.ny1.com...

More accounts of the fireball in North Tower lobby/basement

sites.google.com...

Originally posted by lambros56

It still amazes me, how many people actually believe in what N.I.S.T. and the American government have " Theorised " on what the events were on that day.
YOU use the internet.
Most people who believe this story are the ones who DONT.

Well, thank you Captain Obvious! I have been saying from day one that the main force behind all these ridicilous conspiracy stories ISN'T that there's any real evidence of any conspiracy. It's entirely because there are dozens and dozens of these damned fool conspiracy web sites pushing out all sorts of rubbish to get people all paranoid over every mind numbing conspriacy from "invisible controlled demolitions" to "cruise missiles at the Pentagon" to "lasers from outer space". You people then come along and stumble across these pretty looking internet sites to learn "the truth", not realizing these web sites are being operated by (as in the case of "Loose Change" people) a bunch of college kids making internet videos out of their dorm room. This is EXACTLY how this Eric Lawyer guy is being dragged into the conspiracy debate.

I know full well this is what's happening becuase all you need to do is READ the posts of these conspriacy people to see they're simply parroting the rubbish the web sites are putting out, with no critical analysis whatsoever. When someone says, "Ye shalt reap what ye sow", you know they're quoting the Bible. When someone says, "alas, Poor Yorick!" you know they're quoting Shakespeare. Wen someone says "Fuel fires can't melt steel" you know they're quoting Prison Planet, 911truth, or any one of those damned fool conspiracy web sites.

Here's an eye opener for you- not the 9/11 commission report, nor the FEMA report, nor the NIST report, nor even the MIT report, ever made any such claim that the fires "melted" the steel. That bit is 100% a lie these damned fool conspiracy web sites are making up on their own. Not that it makes any difference, since all you need to do is wait a week, and some genius wil come in and post the "fires can't melt steel" conspiracy rubbish all over again. A sexy soundling lie beats a boring sounding truth every time.

[edit on 4-3-2010 by GoodOlDave]

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

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" prove me wrong.

Ok here is some proof for ya bud!
An Oxygen Acetylene torch will get to 5800-6300 degrees Fahrenheit. Jet feul burns at 1000 degrees C which = 1832 degrees F.... which is hotter? Common Sense question... O wait i have a video to!!!

www.youtube.com...

Then here are the links to the heat temps.
Jet Feul

Blow Torch

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
That was where I was at until he got stuck on the beam weapons track.

Except I am not the one claiming beam weapons were used, it is just another silly "truther" conspiracy theory, bought up by a "truther".

Which is just another reason the whole "truther" movement is considered a joke!

Originally posted by howie82788
Ok here is some proof for ya bud!
An Oxygen Acetylene torch will get to 5800-6300 degrees Fahrenheit. Jet feul burns at 1000 degrees C which = 1832 degrees F.... which is hotter? Common Sense question... O wait i have a video to!!!

All right, fine. How about answering the question- where in any of the 9/11 commission report, or the FEMA report, or the NIST report, or the MIT report, do they make the claim the fires "melted the steel"?

I've read them and I can tell you right now that they don't. That crap is coming entirely from those damned fool conspiracy web sites, so criticizing them over how they're trying to say "fires melted the steel" is being dishonest. You can't argue against the point. You just can't.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by howie82788
Ok here is some proof for ya bud!
An Oxygen Acetylene torch will get to 5800-6300 degrees Fahrenheit. Jet feul burns at 1000 degrees C which = 1832 degrees F.... which is hotter? Common Sense question... O wait i have a video to!!!

All right, fine. How about ...............

Yawn.... We all know that World trade Center 7 was brought down in a controlled manner, explosive etc.... and was no freak collapse.

Now just drop it. You are getting no where, believe us.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

Yawn.... We all know that World trade Center 7 was brought down in a controlled manner, explosive etc.... and was no freak collapse.

Now just drop it. You are getting no where, believe us.

Who the heck are you trying to fool? If even 1/1000 of these conspiracy stories were true, there'd have been blown up steel and blatant remains of explosives, det cord, wiring, etc all over the place for the ground crews to find, not to mention, everyone from the NY police department to the NY fire department to the NY Port Authority would have to be in on it, not to mention armies of secret disinformation agents manufacturing fake evidence and false reports to cover it all up. Plus, all of Manhattan would have heard the controlled demolitions going off, not just two or three in the right place at the right time. There's no such thing as quiet explosions.

More importantly, if 1/1000 of these conspiracy stories were true, some government goon would have a silenced pistol in the back of your head the moment you loudmouths clicked the SEND button. Every dictator from Hitler to Stalin to Pol Pot to Kim Jong Il all prove you don't need to be searching stupid conspriacy web sites to find proof for any secret dictatorship. Dictatorships are always blatant, and are always looking to find you.

Sorry, bud, but leave the make believe worlds to George Lucas.

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by dalan.

 

If you can't read, let alone argue with, views contrary to yours ; it doesn't say much for your confidence in your beliefs.

Don't assume things.

Every time I get onto one of these threads on the 9/11 forum there is the group posting here you contribute nothing and are simply trolling and derailing threads.

I can research the video the OP posted on my own, without having to scroll through pages of pointless arguing; and I was advising my fellow "truthers" to do the same.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by truthquest

 

I guess the question that really should be asked is why there would be a fire investigation at all.

I mean it is not your typical situation where you get a call in the middle of the night that someone in the neighborhood smells smoke and you arrive on the scene to find a house completely involved. Of course after that you would definetly want to conduct an investigation. However, that wasn't quite the case here.

I am trying to imagine someone from the NYFD walking around taking samples on 9/12 and being asked what he was doing and having to tell someone he was investigating trying to find out what started the fire.

Do you think it was important for investigators to find the structural failure points for the collapse? Do you think its fair to write off reports that the terrorists planted explosives in the buildings or should that have been investigated?

I believe any fire investigator would say an investigation into the matter was very important at the very least to possibly help future skyscrapers to withstand office fires even with some structural damage.

reply to post by beebs


Just wanted to thank you for expressing the exact same sentiments that were on my mind when I read Mr. so called Rational Thinker's posting. What a denier.

If only an investigation were conducted, then all the speculation and denial could be separated from the disinformation agents that will deny everything about 911 because that is what they get paid to do.

I am making a note of all the so called official story believers because when and if an investigation is ever properly conducted, then I will personally confront each and every denier and ask that they they either shut up or get the hell out of ATS with all their denials of anything being wrong with 911.

Each and every denier is indeed part of the problem, but if evidece wont change their minds then direct confrontation from those like myself will demand that they either get on board in pursuing the truth otherwise they should shut the hell up and keep their disinformation remarks to themselves.

These so called 911 deniers are more than deniers, they are the kind of citizen that would allow a crime to exist because it just doesn't really matter to the likes of those that have no moral or ethical compass.

Time will tell and when it does, all the deniers are going to be confronted in the media, in politics, and in blog sites such as ATS.

Accept truth or shut up will be my challenge to the 911 deniers because at present more than enough evidence exists to conclude that many crimes have been comitted.

To the so called Mr. Rational Thinker, I ask you, where have you been under a rock? Do you not recall that Bush Jr. called Tom Daschle and told him not to investigate 911 or else? Do you remember that the Anthrax was mailed to Tom Daschle as the addressee? Well, these are only minor elements that allow for a real rational thinker to conclude that something is not right.

If wanting an investigation to determine the truth of matters is an insane idea then I say those that hold to such opinions are nothing but either completely ignorant or disinformation agents doing their deed on anyone willing to tolerate their ignorant anti-911 beliefs.

Anyway, thanks for the posting, considering how many stars you have gotten, I can see that many agree with your posting and reply to the so called Mr. Rational Thinker. I for one think you were dead on and apparantly many others think the same.

Originally posted by dalan.

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by dalan.

 

If you can't read, let alone argue with, views contrary to yours ; it doesn't say much for your confidence in your beliefs.

Don't assume things.

Every time I get onto one of these threads on the 9/11 forum there is the group posting here you contribute nothing and are simply trolling and derailing threads.

I can research the video the OP posted on my own, without having to scroll through pages of pointless arguing; and I was advising my fellow "truthers" to do the same.

In several of my threads , I actually write.

Listen to the information, and make up your own mind.

I believe we have been lied too, I will not twist your arm to agree, but I will

post Threads and Information I believe will re-inforce my beliefs.

Your beliefs, are yours, and yours alone.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


The steel was NOT melted? So the pictures taken of molten metal dripping from the scene of the impact before the towers fell and the molten metal that was dripping from the rubble as it was being (illegally) cleaned up must then be hoaxes.

The towers did NOT fall into their basements? Okay so where did the towers fall? On their sides? (NO).

The hijacked airplanes were not ALLOWED to wander about for an hour and a half. Depends on how you interpret 'allowed'. The fact is that jets from the nearest based were NOT scrambled while jets from further away were, and some of them were sent in the wrong direction.

The components of the aircraft that hit the pentagon did NOT evaporate? Then if that's true then those components ie. the titanium engine parts, the steel wings, must still be there, right? Oops that right, they're not there and have never been found so either they weren't there to begin with or they 'evaporated'.

If there's any disinfo here it's from you. What cell of the Mossad do you belong to?

Originally posted by Bspiracy

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Which is another real interesting question in the case of building seven which wasn't hit by a plane or had jet fuel burning in it. You might think that the sprinkler system would have contained a few isolated fires from flying burning debris.

Given that large swaths of the building were ripped apart due to debris from the first two towers, I would imagine any water pressure available was gone as soon as a large portion of the building was crippled.



b

If the damage in the linked photo was a significant cause of Building 7's collapse, why didn't it topple over to that side? Instead, it came straight down.

Also the latest report from the NIST claims that debris from the collapsing Twin Towers did not significantly contribute to Building 7's collapse. Do you disagree with that assessment?

Originally posted by Bspiracy

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
reply to post by Bspiracy

 

"
The 911 tragedies require more than a "I imagine" and a superficial photograph. They require A freekin REINVESTIGATION by honest Americans.
All we have had for 9 years is "I imagine."
sorry fail

What the heck are you talking about?
The photo I linked to shows a portion of building 7 that was described by the firefighter in charge at the scene as 1/3 of the building had a hole in it. It was 20 floors high and went to the ground.. superficial my arse.
Look at the picture and read the quotes by the firefighter AT THE SCENE describing building 7 as seriously compromised before it collapsed. The building was assessed by engineers AT THE SCENE who ALSO said (before any commission report or Silversteen conspiracy which is also bunk because he lost money in the whole tragedy) the building was "dangerously compromised"
You may have to WORK though by actually removing the image name on the end of the hyper-link. A common internet "trick" for the advanced.

Also you obviously "failed" to read my post above that completely agrees with the OP that the protocols were not followed and justly should have. I firmly attest that a complete investigation should be initiated. "I imagine" you would know that if you read my post only 6 inches above the one you attacked.

Using "I imagine" over a water pressure question regarding sprinklers and then being "outed" by you with a "fail" is seriously lacking of any critical thinking on your part. If anything has failed it's your attitude combined with the lack of ability to read and interpret without spewing intelligible responses.

b

[edit on 3-3-2010 by Bspiracy]

You also have me confused about the intentions of your posts. First you appear to support one side, then the other, which is fine, the events and stories we've been told by both sides regarding these events are confusing enough to lead anyone down seemingly contradictory paths. I agree that there is ample evidence for no water pressure at Building 7, so no sprinklers. But as bad as the damage in your linked photo appears, the NIST did not find it significant, and the building did not topple over to that side, apparently confirming its lack of influence on the actual collapse.

I am curious though, do you disagree with that assessment on NIST's part?