Eric Lawyer-Firefighter-911 was a Criminal Coverup

reply to post by HeinousOne


I became pretty involved within the original thread the video you posted first surfaced.

Blaine1984 did a fine job at naling something about 7 and the lack of investigation thereof. Without going back to the thread I'll quote from memory... "the point of the commission was to determine the cause of the collapse, not the effect."

He has a good point there..

It was pointed out that the video most likely involves a reference to the Church committee and the CYA attitude that has developed since then. The video you posted perfectly illustrates the point I tried to make a tad bit earlier regarding viewpoint and where/when/how you awoke to the possibility of a conspiracy that chills the heart with its implications.

While I agree that the focus on 9/11 should be investigated further, I ask that people WHO ARE ACTUALLY READING ENTIRE THREADS take into account that while they think they are awake, have they truly shaken the sleep from their eyes?

Wake up, look around and realize what you are looking at. Once you do that then you can appreciate the viewpoint of the asleep,awakening and the awake. the people with clarity I envy. The people with true knowledge of the evil purveyed I abhor & condemn IF they allow further injustice to the fabric of society. If they live and continue without struggle towards the positive then not only do I condemn but I wish for their painful destruction

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.

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.

Are you lying on purpose or on accident?

I had no idea that so many standard codes of investigation were broken. No idea. I imagine then that even most 9/11 researchers have not heard about this. I bet you didn't either. This is brand new information. Flagged!

I can't believe you can be so dishonest. You address none of the points the video and just slew up some mud. Address the points or get lost, okay?

So lets start with why they broke so many investigation rules. Why did they do that if they had nothing to do with it? Incompetence? Is that your claim? I don't expect you'll answer back and address any of the points because your just in denial (or maybe just a troll). Prove me wrong.

[edit on 4-3-2010 by truthquest]

Originally posted by truthquest
So lets start with why they broke so many investigation rules.

Exactly what "rules" did they break? Who said that those rules must be followed?

reply to post by Sean48


Awesome video and thank you for posting it Sean.

It is uplifting to know that our service men and women are beginning to come out of the woodwork more often to call for another investigation which, if you want to get technical, would be the FIRST investigation into the events of 9/11.

Also I wan to add that I have read many of your threads that you post regarding 9/11, and every time without fail, it is hijacked by the SAME group of trusters. The arguments back and forth are not doing us any good when it comes down to investigating the truth; and I do believe that these certain trusters are connected to one another.

I put every single one of them on my ignore list, and after going through your thread without their derailments, it was much easier to find posts that matter.

I would list those member here, but I think that is against the T & C.

We could have much better discussions without the incessant arguing, and it would be my advice to you and anyone else labeled a 'truther' to put these certain individuals on our ignore lists. If we do it collectively thereby ignoring their incessant trolling, we will successfully stifle them simply by not feeding their need to argue.

There, I have said my peace.

Put all "trusters" on your ignore list.

[edit on 3/4/2010 by dalan.]

reply to post by Sean48


Any idea of how much asbestos there was in the WTC buildings ? The fallout alone at the day of the collapse will kill thousands of people. Its not a good idea to keep that stuff or make people walk around in it, the cleanup was effective.

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.

Good thread Sean.

I love how some of the 9-11 Trusters flock to 9-11 threads and ONLY 9-11 threads like it's their job.

oh wait . . .

All the Trusters whom support the OS are either misinformed, delusional, or employed to perform disinformation tactics by the very entity that perpetrated the crime. Ergo i wouldn't pay much attention to any of them.

Don't be afraid to challenge Trusters to a member debate either; they'll never accept, because they know the OS is a lie.

Their bark is much worse than their bite, for the OS has no teeth.

Good day.

[edit on 3/4/2010 by JPhish]

Originally posted by ImAPepper
Eric Lawyer-Firefighter-911 was a Criminal Coverup
You are a disgrace to the brothers that lost their lives on 911.

Originally posted by GoodOldDave

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.

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...?

Originally posted by hooper
Translation: I only want to hear my opinion.

Originally posted by ImAPepper
Um, I asked how many FDNY members are on his website...
Allow me to put it this way...
How many members of the FDNY are members of the Firefighters 4 911 Truth?

Whats that got to do with what the OP said? My car has 4 tires and a spare, how much does it cost to replace one?

Originally posted by dereks
No, you cannot handle the truth.

- Love thinkers like this, My way or the Highway for everyone - Who exactly does this person think they are? (guess - Gov Employee or Sports Player, Those seem to get the case of am better then all of you, more so then others).


What a Joke - Seriously.. Anyone ever stop and wonder why the rest of the world is laughing at the United States?

All of these threads on 911 - not just this one, have a common theme - A new investigation. Actually pretty painless in light of the money that has changed hands, the emotional impact for everyone, specially the citizens of the United States.

So is this the best we can do? Read the quotes above - Am ashamed we have so many running around doing nothing more then just insulting people, because they are asking for more information..

When did asking questions become a "Make Fun Of" Offense? I remember being in 1st Grade and kids giggling when others asked questions - but that was years ago and at a very early point in life. My experiences are that it stopped there..

So who are these people that made it far enough though school to read and write, but yet never where able to give up the name calling?

Gross, nothing more, nothing less -

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.

Now that is a very interesting statement.. Looks like there are a couple who got out of the name calling and actually put their brain on for a logical discussion..

So, my question is - What gives people the right to make fun of others for asking more questions? What gives people the right to try and shut others out, because in their minds they have all the answers?

reply to post by highlyoriginal

Since we saw some planes (supposedly) fly into some buildings,

Wow, and you say I am in denial?

Originally posted by highlyoriginal
reply to post by hooper

 

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")

Smurfy suggested on page 1 that the fire manual referred to by Mr Lawyer said that " thermite is an accelerant that should be tested for in the case of a steel building collapse."

I cannot see that this has been confirmed in subsequent pages. So, going back to Mr Lawyer's presentation he refers to 19.2.4 in the manual. He says that this suggests that if " molten steel or concrete " is found you should " consider use of exotic accelerants ". Just sounds like common sense to me.

So, should tests for "exotic accelerants " have been conducted at the WTC ? I am not sure what molten concrete is but I understand molten steel. Question is ; was there any at the WTC ?

I haven't seen any evidence that confirms the presence of " molten steel".
I have seen Steven Jones arguments about it but it is now notorious that he uses fake pictures to support his argument. Here is some comment about that ;-


www.sharpprintinginc.com...:79

The 4th photo in this article , which the author hasn't picked up on , is actually taken from a video of firefighters looking into a hole with a flashlight. Anyway, if you have to fake evidence to support the notion of " molten steel " it is not very convincing.

So, I would say that, in the absence of evidence of molten steel at the WTC, there was no reason why anyone should follow the guide-line 19.2.4 and start looking for "exotic accelerants".

reply to post by Alfie1

"No evidence"???How about an external fireball causing global,even,complete collapse?How about the molten metal just a-pouring out of the corner of the bdg?The testimony of the firefighters,over and over stating CLEARLY there was MOLTEN pools of metal in the basement weeks later?And the pix to prove?Bdg7?NO EVIDENCE?Kid thyself,none other.

Originally posted by trueforger
reply to post by Alfie1

 

"No evidence"???How about an external fireball causing global,even,complete collapse?How about the molten metal just a-pouring out of the corner of the bdg?The testimony of the firefighters,over and over stating CLEARLY there was MOLTEN pools of metal in the basement weeks later?And the pix to prove?Bdg7?NO EVIDENCE?Kid thyself,none other.

The crucial word missing from your post is " steel ".

reply to post by Alfie1

Wasn't omitting the name of the metal.It is perfectly obvious that steel is the only one to remain molten so long,aluminum hardens right away due to high thermal conductivity.Steel can be a conductor,or semi conductor depending on alloy.

I didn't say steel because the cover up has made that claim dubious,hence the need for a real investigation.But,yes it really was steel in my opinion.Steel reacting with thermate,just like the man says,DrJones et al.As opposed to MrGross.

Originally posted by rhines
Any idea of how much asbestos there was in the WTC buildings ? The fallout alone at the day of the collapse will kill thousands of people. Its not a good idea to keep that stuff or make people walk around in it, the cleanup was effective.

Most of that was in the dust cloud and they did little to nothing to protect people except what they took upon themselves as individuals to do. Remember the EPA told everyone that air was safe to breathe.

And dereks asking whose investigative rules were broken. The NFPA's or any other standard, which requires as much as evidence as possible to be saved for forensic investigation. The amount of steel saved for investigation was pathetic. Though I know dereks is just trolling and will readily have a hundred nonsense excuses on the government's behalf.

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.


Compromised as this may be... how can a building damaged only on one side come straight down? Why wouldn't it fall over rather than straight down?

Originally posted by trueforger
reply to post by Alfie1

 

Wasn't omitting the name of the metal.It is perfectly obvious that steel is the only one to remain molten so long,aluminum hardens right away due to high thermal conductivity.Steel can be a conductor,or semi conductor depending on alloy.

I didn't say steel because the cover up has made that claim dubious,hence the need for a real investigation.But,yes it really was steel in my opinion.Steel reacting with thermate,just like the man says,DrJones et al.As opposed to MrGross.

If you agree that the claim for steel is "dubious " then surely no-one can be faulted for not testing for " exotic accelerants " as per the guide-line.

reply to post by Bspiracy


I realize the Commission was not about finding out how it all happened but instead about who made it happen. Thing is though, the FBI hasn't charged anyone for this attack that happened within our borders. I would love to see a public trial because it will be viewed by all of us, a military trial won't be. We deserve a criminal investigation into either those who caused this, or those whom were responsible for allowing it to happen. If one commission member thinks the Tower itself is part of a conspiracy going back to its creation 30 years before 9/11 then I for one think that warrants some serious investigation. What were they shown in that Commission?


Now as far as the back and forth bickering goes, at this point no one is going to win over anyone else firmly entrenched on either the "truster" or "truther" side. So why not try to have a little respect for each other and where you stand. The fact that the people have reached this sort of "deadlock" for me is just one more reason to have an investigation. The believers in there Possibly being a conspiracy (like me) are growing as more and more people realize that our government is Broken. Hell even mass media now calls it Broken Government.

We need a full investigation with subpoena powers to put this behind us.

reply to post by six67seven


Because of the internal support structure. I know there are some building 7 threads on here and it would behoove someone trying to argue the demolition viewpoint to read them.

The building was more hollow than you think.

It was supported by three main columns and the gaping hole destroyed one and photos have shown that the middle support had also been severely damaged before collapse. After seeing the schematics of the building and comparing it to the photos of the TRUE destruction of the building from the debris field, it is plausible the middle support snapped from the weight shift of the crippled building.

There's no doubt that it looks highly suspect.
there's no doubt that what was housed in the building makes a person call into question the possibility of a demolition for nefarious purposes.

But if you look at the schematics, and realize that literally 1/3 of the building was suspended in mid air after the debris field came through you have to give in to the fact that 40+ stories leaning on 2/3s of a severely damaged building that was built entirely different than a normal 40+ story building WAS possible.

Which makes me focus on OTHER points of interest. Taking everything into account, 9/11 was a severely anomalous situation and severely anomalous things happened that day.
The greatest conspiracy I see without doubt on that day is consent and even help by factions to let it all happen. Arguing building demolition vs probable collapse will never be settled for truthers. It has been settled in the official record and you will not get another investigation.

Arguing consent to a conspiracy is the best avenue of attack. Plenty of evidence has surfaced regarding that prospect and would be the best bet for the truther movement to seize on.. Just like this thread has actually got a valid point with the fact that there was evidence suggesting exotic compounds and it was totally ignored.
THAT pisses me off as much as the obvious obfuscation of the drills on that day.
It pisses me off that intel had been reported by persons working IN the FBI who were then "let go" from there position after trying to follow through with the reported knowledge.

b

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by truthquest
So lets start with why they broke so many investigation rules.

Exactly what "rules" did they break? Who said that those rules must be followed?

NFPA 9.3.6
"Once evidence has been removed from the scene it should not be spoiled or altered."

NFPA 14.3
"The cause of the fire or explosion is not known until near the end of the investigation. The entire fire scene should be considered and physical evidence should be protected and preserved."

In point of fact the vast majority of evidence at the World Trade Center was shipped off to China at a low price where it was destroyed, despite that local steel recyclers would have paid more for the steel that was shipped to China. Dereks, question 1, was that an appropriate thing to do? I find it disgusting personally but would like to hear your take on the destruction of the crime scene.

NFPA 19.2.4
"If on the scene you find melted steel or concrete you should consider the use of exotic accelerants"

NFPA 18.15
"All available fuel sources should be considered and eliminated until one fuel can be identified until meeting all the physical damage criteria. For example if you find pulverized concrete, the only fuels that can create seated explosions can be considered."

Chapter 18
"Although an explosion is almost always accompanied by the production of a loud noise, the noise is NOT(bold lettering) a definition essential element in the definition of an explosion. The generation and violent escape of gasses are the primary criteria of an explosion."

NFPA 19.4.8.2.6
"The terrorist may include fire as but one of a variety of weapons along with explosives used in furthering his or her goal."

The NTSB did not test for exotic accelerants in violation of the rules. In fact, they should clearly have focused on "seated explosions". Question 2. Was it a good idea for them not to do that, dereks?

The NTSB should have only considered seated explosions according to these rules considering that pulverized concrete was very common at the WTC debris site. In fact that was considered by the FBI at first who seemed to believe that there may have been explosions in the basement but for no apparent reason that was written off without explanation. Do you want the link showing the FBI believed there may have been explosions in the basement of the WTC? I doubt it because I think you already have the answers regardless of the evidence.

Go ahead and say they are not rules because they are only guidelines and they don't have to be followed by law. Call them anything you want. There were rules and regardless of whether they were identical its pretty much common sense they would be at least somewhat similar and its common sense also that they were not followed. Whether what they were following were rules or guidelines doesn't make it any less incompetent, suspicious, and downright disgusting.

Derek, question 3 is the big one: Were there standards to follow for the 9/11 investigation and do you think they did a good job following them? I'd like a point blank and honest answer to that. Hopefully we can stay right on topic unlike the person I replied to which I have no hope that he or she could respond with anything other than personal attacks.

*edit to correct quote*

[edit on 4-3-2010 by truthquest]