Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Eric Lawyer-Firefighter-911 was a Criminal Coverup

page: 4
71
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by Sean48
 


"Thedman" has a nasty habit of not paying attention to a damned thing you tell him. He once said the towers were only designed for a 200 mph impact. I showed him that no, they were investigated and found stable after 600 mph 707 impacts.


Aye, I know him well, proved him wrong again (sigh) and he ran.




posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sean48

I posted the excerpt from the NFTA about 5 post above your quoted (above)

post.

All the Faither's closed their eyes and scrolled past it.


You just skipped the little stuff about it coming from a manual that is a guideline and in no way compels any investigator to look for anything or qualifies not following the guildeines as misconduct.

Everyone knows that thermite is an accelerant. Thats is not the point.



posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by smurfy
reply to post by hooper
 
Hi Hoop,
the towers did fall without warning... that's why everyone ran like f...



That's funny, I could have sworn there was a predecessor activity. Something about planes crashing. Oh well, must be thinking of somewhere else.

And since you mentioned it, being that according to you the towers fell without any reason or suspicion, why were was there such a big rush to evacuate them? They were in perfectly fine fiddle to the moment they started to collapse, right?
You are right, silly me, of course everyone knew they were going to fall, they all just stood there making videos right underneath and right up to the moment...and then they ran like f... and old Harley man was right on ball to give a resume of what happened from start to finish, and even the reason why they fell, here's his link even though a lot of us have seen it Ad nauseum,

www.youtube.com...
Better quality,
www.youtube.com...
First time I saw him, I thought it was Chevy Chase!

Edit to add, who said they fell without reason or suspicion? not me. So not according to me. Catch yourself on lad, they obviously fell for some reason, and if anyone was suspicious why? so they were ahead of the game then, just like Harley man. If you want to debate something, then debate it, and not misconstrue deliberately, people are not that stupid, though you might love it if it were true.

[edit on 3-3-2010 by smurfy]


+9 more 
posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   
To have all 5 resident official story pushers here chime in within minutes of this thread being posted in a tag team fashion must mean the information in it is valid and damaging to their cause.

They think that people will read the evidence and then disregard it because they said it is damed fooled or charge it as old news, nothing to see here folks.

Wow. The 1st few posts of this thread follow the rules of classic disinformaiton

namely 10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with


2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule.

Find out more about the tactics employed here as you have your education disturbed
www.whale.to...


oh and one more...... 5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists'



[edit on 3-3-2010 by Shadow Herder]



posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 06:11 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 

Have to take issue with your calling these ratiocinations of the Trusters,"excuses".An excuse is given beforehand.These are rationalizations,poor at that.



posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 07:22 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


It must be nice believing everything the government tells you. Some people dont.



posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
To have all 5 resident official story pushers here chime in within minutes of this thread being posted in a tag team fashion must mean the information in it is valid and damaging to their cause.

........

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule.

Find out more about the tactics employed here as you have your education disturbed
www.whale.to...


oh and one more...... 5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists'



[edit on 3-3-2010 by Shadow Herder]


Quoted for truth.

To think that a person by now still believes the government story is beyond belief.

[edit on 3-3-2010 by Unplugged]



posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sean48

The Official Story is falling apart at the seams, this is more evidence of that.


I agree Sean...


Excellent video, very well spoken...

The truth will come out sooner or later.....


S&F



posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by trueforger
 
Hi true,
Excuse, as in "Excuse me" is a beforehand, and is mainly in speech. But you can be "excused by reason of" which is a rationalization, as are "excuses" not to say that reason and excuse are the same thing though. A good debating point.



posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperSlovak
 


The government didnt tell me anything.
1,000s of independent engineers, metallurgists, fire fighters, architects told me.

But then again, it must be nice to be told what happened from a bunch of college frat boys in their mother's basement making movies about 9/11 without a single bit of understanding in the stuff they are talking about. Or the armchair experts that watch grainy videos and come to conclusions that are beyond reality, all the while thinking they are better than the actual professionals who studied the area on site and found nothing of conspiracy.



posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 07:53 PM
link   

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.


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.

So why were Larry's orders to PULL IT followed to the T?
Do you pull it every time someone orders you to?
If I told you to PULL IT that day would you have?



posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Donny 4 million

So why were Larry's orders to PULL IT followed to the T?
Do you pull it every time someone orders you to?
If I told you to PULL IT that day would you have?


Billionaire Real Estate tycoons often tell the Fire departments to blow up skyscrapers! You didn't know that?

Really Donny? The Pull it comment? I mean, you didn't even get the quote right!



posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Come on Gen, you can do better than that. Do you know that they did not even follow the most basic proceedure for a burned down freekin house?



posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ImAPepper
 


Does this mean you would Pull It for Larry if he ordered you to?
I thought you put me on ignore when your feathers were molting. Are you going to allow Dave to answer for his self?
Building SEVEN didn't even have a aircraft hit it.

[edit on 3-3-2010 by Donny 4 million]



posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 


Nice dodge... go find out why you were mistaken with the Silverstein quote. LEt me know ... okay?



posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Anatomy of a coverup. Below are excerpts from a December 25, 2001 New York Times article providing information as to the methods used to stonewall the investigation of the physical evidence pertaining to the collapsed WTC buildings.

The engineers primary goal was to examine the scrap and try and learn how to build safer skyscrapers in the future. Apparently, the Government wants nothing to do with engineers learning from this collapse how to build safer structures. I wonder why. Maybe the engineers would have learned some other things if they had full access to the evidence?

Also, check out the date of this article. Obviously could not have picked a better day for minimum exposure of this information.

Experts Urging Broader Inquiry in Towers' Fall

"Experts critical of the current effort, including some of those people who are actually conducting it, cite the lack of meaningful financial support and poor coordination with the agencies cleaning up the disaster site. They point out that the current team of 20 or so investigators has no subpoena power and little staff support and has even been unable to obtain basic information like detailed blueprints of the buildings that collapsed."

"In calling for a new investigation, some structural engineers have said that one serious mistake has already been made in the chaotic aftermath of the collapses: the decision to rapidly recycle the steel columns, beams and trusses that held up the buildings. That may have cost investigators some of their most direct physical evidence with which to try to piece together an answer."

"Interviews with a handful of members of the team, which includes some of the nation's most respected engineers, also uncovered complaints that they had at various times been shackled with bureaucratic restrictions that prevented them from interviewing witnesses, examining the disaster site and requesting crucial information like recorded distress calls to the police and fire departments."

"This is almost the dream team of engineers in the country working on this, and our hands are tied," said one team member who asked not to be identified. Members have been threatened with dismissal for speaking to the press."

www.nytimes.com...



posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Wondered if you had already seen these threads:
Molten Steel
Melted Cars



posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Come on Gen, you can do better than that. Do you know that they did not even follow the most basic proceedure for a burned down freekin house?


Ah so when a house burns down, they automatically test it for napalm, thermite, nano-thermites, military grade incendiaries?

So when there is a house fire what do they first investigate (depending on the circumstances) ? The obvious causes, ie: careless smoking, unattended candles, faulty electrical wiring, kitchen/grease fire.

Or if it is a suspicious fire, do they look for napalm, thermite, nano-thermites, military grade incendiaries? Or do they look for the gasoline traces, starter fluid, flammable chemicals, molotov cocktail? So according to you, they should test for every known possible cause for a suspicious fire? Including military grade incendiares? i wonder how many fire investigators ever had to do that?





new topics

top topics



 
71
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join