Eric Lawyer-Firefighter-911 was a Criminal Coverup

page: 7
71
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


Scary. Were there exploded stairways and bodies laying on the other stairway like Barry tells about in his video of BUILDING SEVEN?


I don't know if the stairwells had exploded or not, though they remained closed for a while. The elevators were all damaged and when they first opened back up they only had a couple of construction type elevators hastily installed in two shafts while they worked on repairing all the others.

I do know that the firefighters above the fire lost their window of opportunity to go back down through the stairwells and had no choice but to make a last stand or go up with the building.

Fortunately the fire started in the evening when the building was largely desserted except for cleaning and maintenance staff. I don't recall anyone dying but there was a lot of controversy why the fire sprinkler system wasn't able to contain the fire when it first started.

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.




posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 10:02 PM
link   
Sure, the plane was seen as the reason immediately during the fact, but the things that were true were
1: molten metal was seen before the collapse and is on videotape.
2: molten metal was found at the base for several weeks
3: explosions were reported by witnesses
(the above three are cause for this thread as obviously shown from the 2001 firemens manual)
4: the building had previously been targeted before with bombs/explosives

Add those four together and it becomes completely rational and logically implicating for explosives/ exotic accelerants to be used as part of an obviously LONG planned attack. It only makes sense to suspect that bombs may have been planted within the buildings prior to the attack and doesn't have to be related to a "conspiracy" theory.

All the signs WERE there.
Steven Jones was/is ridiculed and has discovered and published many findings from evidence people saved and provided, even under legal risk, because the evidence was being destroyed daily. If procedures WERE followed, maybe it could have been proven that underwear bombs had slowly been snuck in over a period of time and reacted with the jet fuel causing the steel to melt...

THATS RIGHT.. you heard it here first UNDERWEAR BOMBS BROUGHT DOWN THE TOWERS

This is what bothers me about Bush coming out and saying things like "We will not tolerate wild conspiracy theories" because the simple and mundane has been twisted into a wild conspiracy theory. It only adds to the guilt his face conveyed while he was sitting at the school against protocol. It only makes the conspiracy theory more of a reality.

b



posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


I have never read a OS engineering report that was definite. They are always chock full of "suggests this" or " could be related to that" or the building would still be standing if Billy Bob Thorton didn't accept the role in Sling Blade. I know you are going to jump on me about Billy Bob. It is just an analogy.



posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 10:14 PM
link   

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



posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


You are familiar with the Barry I mentioned. If not have a look--

Barry Jennings
Barry Jennings, a City Housing Authority worker who had become trapped in World Trade Center Building 7, finds the building's lobby in ruins as he is being ...

www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=Center Is Empty; Jennings Warned to Leave - Jennings will describe that, when he arrives at the emergency command center, “To my amazement, nobody’s there.” He says: “I saw coffee that was still hot, that was still smoldering. They had screens all over the place, but the screens were blank. So I didn’t know what was going on.” He then phones several individuals, including one of his superiors. When Jennings says where he is, the superior responds: “Get out of there. Get out of there now.” Hess then runs back into the center, after having found the stairwell, and says: “We’re the only ones up here. We gotta get out of here.” [Dylan Avery, 2007; BBC, 7/6/2008]
9/11 Commission Claims Command Center Not Evacuated until Later - Yet, according to the 9/11 Commission, “After the South Tower was hit [at 9:03], OEM senior leadership decided to remain in its ‘bunker’ and continue conducting operations, even though all civilians had been evacuated from 7 WTC.” The Commission will claim the emergency command center is not evacuated until 9:30 a.m. (see (9:30 a.m.) September 11, 2001). [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 305] But according to the London Independent, Hess and Jennings arrive there by the time the South Tower is hit, which suggests the center is evacuated earlier than officially claimed. [Independent, 9/13/2001] Jennings himself will recall, “I had to be inside on the 23rd floor when the second plane hit.” [Dylan Avery, 2007] The possibility that the emergency command center is evacuated earlier than the 9/11 Commission claims is partly confirmed by OEM Commissioner John Odermatt, who later says that after the first plane hit the WTC, he left only two staffers there (see (Soon After 8:46 a.m.-9:35 a.m.) September 11, 2001). [Barrett and Collins, 2006, pp. 34] Jennings and Hess subsequently head down the stairs, but will become trapped in WTC 7, and have to be rescued by firefighters (see 12:10 p.m.-12:15 p.m. September 11, 2001). [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005, pp. 109-110 ] barry_jennin... -


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



posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 10:24 PM
link   
There are a lot of you members asking for experts and professionals. Well I ask where were the experts and the professionals when completing the 911 commission? Let me list the people assigned to the commission and you decide who is lacking experts and professionals.

This is from the book (yes, a book, remember those?) 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott. And just so you know, David Ray Griffin was in the Pentagon the day it was struck by the missile. He is a witness.

So, the commission had 10 members plus and executive director.
"1. Thomas Kean, the chair, is a teacher and politician, with a Master's from Columbia Univ. Teacher's College
2. Lee Hamilton, vice chair, and is a lawyer
3. Richard Ben-Veniste, lawyer
4. Fred Fielding, lawyer
5. Jamie Gorelick, lawyer
6. Slade Gorton, lawyer
7. Timothy Roemer, lawyer
8. James Thompson, lawyer
9. Bob Kerry was trained as a pharmacist; after military served as Nebraska governor, representative, and senator.
10. John Lehman, an investment banker and Reagan's secretary of the navy, completed the Ph.D with a dissertation entitled "Functional Analysis of Congress and the Executive in Foreign Policy."
The executive director, Philip Zelikow, is an academic student of the presidency."

David Ray Griffin would go on to say, "It would appear that only Lehman and Zelikow had the kind of academic training needed to examine what really happened and why, and their training equipped them only to deal with the political dimension of 9/11. In terms of science, engineering, technology, psychology, economics, intelligence, and practical law enforcement, no one on the Commission seems to have been remotely qualified to examine the evidence and assess what happened, and what it signified. The government assigned no thinkers, no scientists, no engineers, and no intelligence analysts to the official task of assessing what happened on 9/11. Instead, Washington and the Bush administration apparently believed itself best served by legal tacticians, politicians, political theorists, and political supporters.

The Commission's product is thus necessarily a non-scientific document. It is an ad hoc document, absent any critical or complete examination of facts on the ground. Perhaps the real message Americans should take away from the report is how tremendously important this report-- in al its nonsensical glory --is held to be by the Bush administration."

So yes, I think we damn well deserve a new investigation. Not just any investigation, but one rive thinkers, scientists, engineers, and intelligence analysts.

To all you non-believers... do you really think we believers WANT this to be true? This is no longer a matter of truth. We know the truth. We know we are being lied to, being ignored, being ridiculed. We need the people guilty of treason to be held accountable. Otherwise there were a lot of Americans that died in vain on 9/11 just so a few could pad their future with money and power, because those people guilty are cowards, and nothing more.



posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 10:36 PM
link   
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



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

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]



posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
reply to post by GenRadek
 


I like this one best Gen do you remember the best part? Can you tell us about it.

Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center. By: Karim, Mohammed R.; Fatt, Michelle S. Hoo. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Oct2005, Vol. 131 Issue 10, p1066-1072.


Oh Boy!! What is the best part Donny?

Did you read the paper even? I doubt it. What I found was that according to their tests, the aircraft would have managed to enter the WTC without a problem at the perimeter columns. It states that the 9.5 mm thickness of the column would allow the aircraft to penetrate the exterior columns without a problem. What it ALSO says is that if the column wall had more than 20mm thicknesses, the aircraft may not have been able to penetrate the exterior.

But what is interesting is that they did not take into account the bolted connections of the column trees. Those would have been the first to fail and snap, punching out the entire column tree into the building, allowing for the aircraft to enter. After all that is also what happened there, but that is ok. That was not part of the parameters. They should have taken that into account as well.

[edit on 3/3/2010 by GenRadek]



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Bspiracy
 


Well the question is then--- If he was in CHARGE why did he need orders from Larry?



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 





deniers, debunkers, trusters, anti-truthers, and blind-faithers


This term trusters is new to me, I like it.

The Trusters
VS
The Truthers

I wonder how many firemen in New York are closet truthers?
I know they aren't suppose to talk about it anymore, but I guess once they are dying from WTC dust poisoning, what do they have to lose?



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
reply to post by GenRadek
 


I like this one best Gen do you remember the best part? Can you tell us about it.

Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center. By: Karim, Mohammed R.; Fatt, Michelle S. Hoo. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Oct2005, Vol. 131 Issue 10, p1066-1072.


Oh Boy!! What is the best part Donny?

Did you read the paper even? I doubt it. What I found was that according to their tests, the aircraft would have managed to enter the WTC without a problem at the perimeter columns. It states that the 9.5 mm thickness of the column would allow the aircraft to penetrate the exterior columns without a problem. What it ALSO says is that if the column wall had more than 20mm thicknesses, the aircraft may not have been able to penetrate the exterior.

But what is interesting is that they did not take into account the bolted connections of the column trees. Those would have been the first to fail and snap, punching out the entire column tree into the building, allowing for the aircraft to enter. After all that is also what happened there, but that is ok. That was not part of the parameters. They should have taken that into account as well.

[edit on 3/3/2010 by GenRadek]


Alas Gen you do realize that the building was supported by the internal steel structual and the entire second half or your reply is total opinion of wishful sheeple thinking.



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 12:34 AM
link   
Thank you Sean for shining more light on this subject.
It's taking all these years for people to open their minds and their hearts to the sad fact that the US government pulled this stunt. This tragedy really was/is the new Pearl Harbor, IMHO.



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Bspiracy
 

Is this a photograph?It looks like a photoshop job.

But if it is real,for the gazillionth time,how does such obviously unequal damage in one corner of the bdg cause complete,symmetrical freefall-ish colllapse?



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
reply to post by Bspiracy
 


Well the question is then--- If he was in CHARGE why did he need orders from Larry?

I have to admit that the "Pull It" remark has been taken to the extremes. The point has been debated and polarized. This is the issue with TRUTH.

I am for understanding and using as much of reality as a weapon towards revealing the TRUTH as much as possible. But when truthers OR birthers alike seize upon a cornerstone like the "pull it" remark then y=they doom themselves to a single view. Reality is NEVER composed of a single view.

Soo.. the pull it remark.. or ORDERS as you say..
Go ahead and give up the level of vehemence you have regarding the subject and put yourself back into the view of an innocent sheeple that just wanders about baaaahhing this and baaaahhing that...
Lets say you come across his remarks and you were told that his remarks were geared toward the understanding that he was describing a team of people who were trying to save the building and when speaking to Larry during the whole episode, they were referring to the attempt to save the building as an operation.. or "IT" Obviously "IT" can be used as a description for an operation to save the building because a tool of adult communication is to take a situation that everyone is aware of and truncate that situation within a sentence in the best way possible... Speaking with a firefighter and telling him to "pull an operation" can be truncated to 'it" during an interview..

NOW take a sheeple who has been baaaaahing around and tell him that the term "Pull It" ONLY means a destructive sequence initiated by an elite team trained in ordinance and you immediately take out a bottle of black dye and the sheeeeple becomeas a BLACK sheeple who believes Larry was "ordering" the destruction" of his building because he was in cahoots with the government to destroy a 3 building complex of immense proportions in an elaborate 2 plane media construct that flabbergasted the world and it's economy.

BOTH options are possible which makes them an OPTION.
as an intelligent being trying to discover the truth, you have to acknowledge both. both seem ridiculous to a polarized individual, sheeple I might say, so you have to agree on certain points. After you agree to whatever degree, then you must keep looking and try to gain a different advantage by bringing yourself back to a viewpoint where neither previously existed.. Once you do that you realize that then a TRUTHER or TRUSTER viewpoint becomes silly.

So in a final answer to your question of "Well the question is then--- If he was in CHARGE why did he need orders from Larry" I have to ask you this... Do you really know what you are asking and if so, what viewpoint are you asking from and what beliefs are you deriving your tone from? It's unclear actually.

I stated my view on page 7 of this thread. Logic AND video proof determines that a proper investigation into the use of a thermite basic compound should have/ and STILL should be investigated without bias.

Do I believe Larry was TRULY using the phrase "PULL IT" as an obvious description towards a controlled demolition? -- I hate to say it but NO.
why?

1: he's a "freekin" billionaire I believe? .. umm.. I own my own business and DAILY have to converse and keep secrets. Someone at his level has 10000% more guile than you can imagine.
2:given the true understanding of #1 then his LACK of understanding of MUNDANE terms such as "Pull it" makes more sense than him ACTUALLY understanding the term "Pull it"..
3: He LOST Money


SOO.. while it's all convenient to take the glossy cover as an indicative of the actual movie on the Blockbuster shelf, I keep trying to watch as much of the movie as possible without the cover in mind.

At the same time, he could have meant "blow that MFKR down!!"


That's why I slyly try and slip in the understanding that an investigation SHOULD have be performed, NOT because of Larry.. but because if you let go of the polarization and obfuscation deliberately fanned with the fodder of the elites reverse ignorance, then simple facts EVERYONE can understand is there.. just hidden by emotion.

I'm sorry, but building 7 was cleverly done and emotion is blinding too many people in discovering another avenue of attack towards truth. Hell, the whole situation was clever in a way that you and I can only allude towards the understanding of.

b



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by trueforger
reply to post by Bspiracy
 

Is this a photograph?It looks like a photoshop job.

But if it is real,for the gazillionth time,how does such obviously unequal damage in one corner of the bdg cause complete,symmetrical freefall-ish colllapse?


because what you are seeing is just a corner.
If you look at the path the actual debris took, it wasn't a "corner on" angle..
Most photographers were ducking and covering so be glad you have this one combined WITH the testimony. The damage you see in the photo extended to almost the halfway point. As a forensic piece of evidence, the corner is more dramatic and gives a greater indication to how DEEP the scarring truly was. The building was compromised without doubt.

The entire 9/11 event lasted several hours and some photographs showing partial damage are misleading because who knows WHEN the photos were taken.
The latter hours of the event meant that most photographs were limited to a chopper because everyone within 50 square miles were freaked out or as far away from the scene as possible by choice OR instruction/coercion.

All the events of that day are in question, but I truly believe that as an overall, TPTB had more luck than they were expecting with science..

b

[edit on 4-3-2010 by Bspiracy]



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 01:37 AM
link   
I got to admit, some of you guys that believe the official story make some decent arguments and they help me to understand the mindset of folks who believe the official story. I commend you on putting up quite a fight here, it goes to show the quality of this site that I have been quietly watching.

Unfortunately for me though when one of the original commission members makes a statement like this.



Then I have to say the whole situation needs to be relooked at again. If we can spend trillions of dollars fighting two wars over this incident then surely we can have a second investigation. Just that statement alone by one of the Commission members should be enough to bring up enough probable cause to reinvestigate. The case is not closed, there never was any real criminal investigation committed and then closed. The case is wide open and there are enough quality questions brought forth that an investigation should be made in order to answer the questions.

Why anyone would not want an actual investigation into the situation is beyond me. Is it because the wounds are still fresh? Don't wish to have that day brought back into the psyche of America through the media circus that would happen around another investigation?

We are still at war due to that day, we do not even have an official culprit. We just have some dudes that were thrown in a military jail and we were told that they were responsible.

That is all we have from that day. That is not enough.



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 01:38 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Are you being paid to think like a politician with something to hide (which is every single one)? Because everything you've said in this thread makes me believe you are in very bad denial about what actually happened on 9/11.

First, you keep repeating yourself, which is a classic sign of being in denial.

Second, do you really think anyone involved in writing any 'official' reports regarding 9/11 are going to carry through with a new investigation? Not to mention, everything that should have been done on 9/11 and the days following it, for example checking for 'exotic substances' such as thermite, would not be done in a follow up investigation and if they were to be reported in a new investigation either:

A) it would be done on the remaining materials left from 9/11 which do not have sufficient evidence to prove anything

B) or they would simply lie

Oh and you say that no one was looking for exotic substances on 9/11 because everyone was too busy watching the events unfolding??? Wow you're damn right! Since we saw some planes (supposedly) fly into some buildings, and then watched thousands of people die, we DEFINITELY shouldn't do every test possible to see why and what caused this horrific event... we should just forget all possibilities and let the government tell us what to think. Why didn't I think of that before?

Oh now I remember... because you can not trust anyone especially a government who is known to lie, cheat, and steal.

If you need proof of your government doing either of those 3 things above just go to google and type in 'US government lies" - I'm sure a couple website with articles on them may pop up (this is just an assumption though!!!).
_________

Seriously, I don't understand how people can still deny at least the possibility that 9/11 did not happen exactly how the official reports say. If you take everything from anyone word for word, you are clearly an idiot. There is no one in this world you can trust 100% (that includes your significant lover by the way, so while you're on the computer bashing 'truthers' all day long your wife is over here in my bed screaming and moaning and sometimes I even hear her scream out loud "9/11 was a cover-up")



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 02:48 AM
link   
FEMA and NIST did not bother to look for fire accelerants at all is odd and against the most basic protocols of arson investigations but,perhaps that's the point here they had no interest in finding out what actually happened because the US public are so easy to manipulate and appease and since the commission and FEMA and NIST are government bodies they have no reason to lie much like the Warren Commission and the House Select Committee on Assassinations,but we all now know what has come to light in the case of the assassinations of the 60's in recent years.



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 02:59 AM
link   
I have not had a single debate with any of the OS Trusters about any evidences supporting the OS, not one debate.

As far as Eric Lawyer, all I have seen from the OS Trusters is them assassinating his character, and nothing else.
Eric Lawyer tells it like it is the truth. If Eric was lying then I have not seen a single OS Trusters prove it.

By NIST omission WTC 7 evidences was ship away and no debris were tested for any chemical residue for explosions or anything else for that matter.

NIST refuses to test for Thermite and Thermate, however other credible scientists have discover this military grade chemical that scientists say is used in military applications into making highly explosive materials, such as bombs, hand grenades ect…

There is no reason for this chemical Thermite and Thermate to be found in the WTC dust it does not belong there. Why is it there? I have not seen any OS Trusters explain this one.

There is a national standard to an investigation there is supposed to be accountability.

When the firer department investigates a house fire and the fireman suspect arson, they are not going to deliberately over look that empty can of gasoline and the trail of accelerants left all over the house.
This is what NIST did they ignored the real evidences and tried to come up with a hypothesis, based on pseudo sciences.
I find it appalling that NIST arrogantly behaved in a away they did, by trying to fool everyone, and hoping that American Scientist were to stupid to look at basic sciences to see though their phony report. All I can say it showed how sloppy NIST was into trying to cover-up the real crime.

Looking at all the pulverized concrete at ground zero NIST should have been looking for chemicals causing ingredients that was powerful enough to blast millions tons of concrete in to a fine powder, not fire.

I mean for God sakes, the terrorist tried to blow up the WTC in 1993 they planted bombs inside the WTC yet when NIST did their investigating for 911 they totally ignored that credible fact, Un-flipping believable!

NIST flat out lied they stated we did not hears any blast, or explosions on any of the videos from that day and that is why we didn’t investigate anything that would have caused explosions in the WTC. Not only were NIST sloppy in their cover-up they are sloppy lairs as well.






[edit on 4-3-2010 by impressme]





new topics
top topics
 
71
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum