Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Erik Lawyer from Firefighters for 9/11 Truth Interviewed

page: 1
14
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 25 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, as part of their "Experts Speak Out" series for their up-coming DVD, interviewed Erik Lawyer, founder of Firefighters for 9/11 Truth:






There shouldn't be a single firefighter here that can argue with what Mr. Lawyer has to say in this interview. There were signs of explosives and incendiaries being used at the WTC and none of those were tested for. The forensic testing should have been done to determine what caused the explosions and molten steel found at the WTC. And there really is no logical way around this fact.




posted on May, 26 2011 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 



There were signs of explosives and incendiaries being used at the WTC and none of those were tested for. The forensic testing should have been done to determine what caused the explosions and molten steel found at the WTC. And there really is no logical way around this fact.


And exactly which facts are those? "Signs" of explosives and incendiaries? Since when was that declared a "fact"? Molten steel? Is that now a fact?

Signs are in the eye of the beholder, I'm afraid. In fact, I could just as easily say that there were no signs of explosives or incendiaries and of course, no signs of molten steel.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Typical answer....Since there is more proof that leads to the planes NOT taking the towers completely straight down, the only thing people who believe the "official story" say is exactly what you have....So good job



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Chrisfishenstein
 



Typical answer....

AKA, the truth. Its "typical" because the truth does not change.

Since there is more proof that leads to the planes NOT taking the towers completely straight down,

Really? Proof? You sure? Then why all the calls for a new investigation? If you already have the proof then release it for all the rest of us to see! Or is your "proof" your own incredulity? Sorry, that doesn't count.

the only thing people who believe the "official story" say is exactly what you have....So good job

It is all there is to say when people start throwing around words like "facts" and "proof". All these contrary facts and proofs and yet here we are. 10 years later and nothing new.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 



There were signs of explosives and incendiaries being used at the WTC and none of those were tested for. The forensic testing should have been done to determine what caused the explosions and molten steel found at the WTC. And there really is no logical way around this fact.


And exactly which facts are those? "Signs" of explosives and incendiaries? Since when was that declared a "fact"? Molten steel? Is that now a fact?

Signs are in the eye of the beholder, I'm afraid. In fact, I could just as easily say that there were no signs of explosives or incendiaries and of course, no signs of molten steel.


Were you there? Did you view the debris first hand?
Yes, you can state anything, which in fact you have, this however does not make it true.
If you have proof that these firefighters are lying, please provide it.

Parker



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Well you'd be wrong wouldnt you, just go to youtube and look for videos of the firefighters on the ground on 9/11. talking off explosives going off, pictures of cars and firetrucks completely incincerated, all the plastic parts of the car including the seats and steering wheels, completely melted, this is on the ground below the towers ? if it was only planes, what caused this ? unexplainable, undeniable evidence that the official story is BS.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Okay then, since there are all kinds of tests they are running to ACTUALLY find out the "official story" why didn't the "official story" just stand up to it is what it is?? You show me ANYTHING that says that if a plane hit a building 40 stories up, that within hours it would blow the windows out of the building from the ground up and make the building fall directly down....And the crickets start chirping as we sit and wait!!!



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   
This is one interview we should all watch before we try to rebuke it.

All he is asking is for the proper proceedures to be followed.

If there is nothing to find, those who uphold the O S they should be right along with the rest of us to clear the air once and for all.

I only wish there had not been what appears to be some editing of the video. This would give those who would oppose any investigation a reason to continue to stall.

Do these people really think they can wait until those who question the O S all just die off and the problem will go away??



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by ParkerCramer
 



Were you there? Did you view the debris first hand?

Where was the molten steel, besides on the internet?

Yes, you can state anything, which in fact you have, this however does not make it true.

Which is exactly my point, relative to the declared facts about signs of explosives and molten steel.

If you have proof that these firefighters are lying, please provide it

I would be glad to! First, please identify the firefighter that is claiming that he/she found explosives.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ParkerCramer
 



Were you there? Did you view the debris first hand?


Where was the molten steel, besides on the internet?

So? You have seen proof of the molten steel, and YOU were not there?

Yes, you can state anything, which in fact you have, this however does not make it true.


Which is exactly my point, relative to the declared facts about signs of explosives and molten steel.

These quotes are coming from First responders, do you have proof they are not being honest?? Why, would you object to an independent inspection/testing of the debris?

If you have proof that these firefighters are lying, please provide it


I would be glad to! First, please identify the firefighter that is claiming that he/she found explosives.


This is laughable, You have proof and will provide it, but you need to know who they are first??? How can you possibly have proof of anothers intent to decieve, if you don't know who the person is??

Parker
edit on 26-5-2011 by ParkerCramer because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by ParkerCramer
 



So? You have seen proof of the molten steel, and YOU were not there?

Huh?

These quotes are coming from First responders, do you have proof they are not being honest?? Why, would you object to an independent inspection/testing of the debris?

You have a quote from a firefighter saying that he/she has found explosives? We're talking EXPLOSIVES now, not loud noises.

This is laughable, You have proof and will provide it, but you need to know who they are first??? How can you possibly have proof of anothers intent to decieve, if you don't know who the person is??

Yep, thats the deal. First you tell me which first responder is claiming to have found explosvies and then I'll prove them wrong! You first, its your claim, not mine.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by hdutton
 



All he is asking is for the proper proceedures to be followed.


So what "procedures: do you follow for a disaster scene which emcompasses a dozen buildings (destroyed or
badly damaged) over 16 acres ? With a debris pile up to 150 feet deep in places ? On Fire?

Consider also there were survivors pinned in the debris

whatreallyhappened.com...

What are going to do about them? Just leave 'em while a squad of Fearless Fosdicks dust the rubble for
prints and search for hair and fibers?

Glad this loon is not backing me up when have to enter a burning building.....



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 09:03 PM
link   
Eric Lawyer went to a firehouse forum and tried to spread his crap evidence around there and got his *** handed to him as a result. The NY Firefighters tore him a new one, It,s a very funny read. (unless you are a Truther then it's not so funny)

If you want to know what NY firefighters realy think of Eric Lawyer you should read this.

Eric's screen name is Koolaid 1

Firehouse



My buddy tells me, "Great guy and one hell of a fire fighter but that shift has been drinking the conspiracy cool aid from one of their officers."


Not worth anymore effort here.
Let this thread die.



GO AWAY! Your conspiracy nonsense is not wanted here. Go back to your conspiracy wackjob websites.

Next month's topic at the meeting is folding aluminum foil hats...do we need Reynolds Wrap or will generic foil work?


Go to Section 2.4, on about page 63 of the pdf....

wtc.nist.gov...

A bunch of facts produced by engineers based on laws of physics that takes all of your bullsh1t and flushes it down the toilet where it belongs.

Take your website and stick it.
__________________
Thomas Anthony, PE
Structures Specialist PA-TF1

Head peon Adamsburg VFD (and I like it that way)



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 



There were signs of explosives and incendiaries being used at the WTC and none of those were tested for. The forensic testing should have been done to determine what caused the explosions and molten steel found at the WTC. And there really is no logical way around this fact.


And exactly which facts are those? "Signs" of explosives and incendiaries? Since when was that declared a "fact"? Molten steel? Is that now a fact?

Signs are in the eye of the beholder, I'm afraid. In fact, I could just as easily say that there were no signs of explosives or incendiaries and of course, no signs of molten steel.


When your house burns down and you want the money you can expect that kind of tests. I am sorry but an investigation which does not cover at least all the BASIC angles is a farce.

If you are seriously saying that firefighters on the scene saying they heard explosions is not a good enough reason to test for accelerants and explosives in what has been an TERRORIST ATTACK, well I am really curious on your train of thought in detail. Could you explain as good as you can why the decision to not test for accelerants or explosives although we had a terrorist attack on our hands and whitnesses on the scene said they head explosions was a correct one?

I say it was wrong and the tests should have been done, better to err on the side of caution on this one.

What do you say?
edit on 26-5-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
When your house burns down and you want the money you can expect that kind of tests.


No, not really. Not when they can look at the circuit panel and see that there are faulty circuits, they aren't going to test for accelerants. Your argument is based on personal ignorance.


Originally posted by Cassius666
I am sorry but an investigation which does not cover at least all the BASIC angles is a farce.


Argument from personal ignorance noted.


Originally posted by Cassius666
If you are seriously saying that firefighters on the scene saying they heard explosions is not a good enough reason to test for accelerants and explosives in what has been an TERRORIST ATTACK, well I am really curious on your train of thought in detail.


First off, a test for accelerants would have been a waste of time. There were many known accelerants in the building.

Explosions =/= explosives. Explosions are common in highrise fires.

Do you think there were bombs in the building, and the FDNY/NYPD never evacuated their men or advised their men to avoid the area? This is SOP. In fact, the NYPD notified the Manhattan dispatch on 9/11 to warn of a report of a bomb in the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel. Guess what the FDNY dispatch did? he advised all incoming units to avoid the area.

Why didn't they do this as GZ?



Originally posted by Cassius666
Could you explain as good as you can why the decision to not test for accelerants or explosives although we had a terrorist attack on our hands and whitnesses on the scene said they head explosions was a correct one?


Because a test for accelerants and explosives would have been a waste of time. Explosions in highrise fires are common. There is no other evidence of any kind of explosion consistant with any kind of bomb.



Originally posted by Cassius666
I say it was wrong and the tests should have been done, better to err on the side of caution on this one.


Good thing you're not a fire investigator. You're basing this argument on personal ignorance.


Originally posted by Cassius666
What do you say?


I say you should study up on NFPA 921. Maybe then you'll understand where Erik goes so horribly wrong.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 09:07 AM
link   
Interesting to see that lots of firefighters don't seem to subscribe to the Truth Movement narrative, despite there being no organisation in opposition to "Firefighters for 9/11 Truth".

Truthers often claim that the fact that there's no "Architects and Engineers or Scientists for the OS" pressure group must mean that those communities are broadly supportive of the Truth Movement. And yet that doesn't seem to be the case here...



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Interesting to see that lots of firefighters don't seem to subscribe to the Truth Movement narrative, despite there being no organisation in opposition to "Firefighters for 9/11 Truth".

Truthers often claim that the fact that there's no "Architects and Engineers or Scientists for the OS" pressure group must mean that those communities are broadly supportive of the Truth Movement. And yet that doesn't seem to be the case here...


You're absolutely right. Firefighters as a whole do not agree with the Truthers. Not one bit.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by FDNY343
 


It doesn't surprise me at all. What seems odd is that Truthers assume that silence on an issue equates to agreement with the people who are shouting the loudest.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by FDNY343
 


It doesn't surprise me at all. What seems odd is that Truthers assume that silence on an issue equates to agreement with the people who are shouting the loudest.


It's not just truthers. It's pretty much every conspiracy theorist. Back in the 70's that "Chariots of the Gods" guy tried to make the case that aliens came down and built all the ancient world wonders like the pyramids, justifying it by claiming that "experts are unable to challenge his evidence". What he didn't mention is that the experts didn't even bother responding to him because they all thought he was koo koo for cocoa puffs.

Conspiracy theorists are notorious for grasping at any straw that helps them keep their conspiracy stories alive, so trying to portray widespread dismissal into looking like everyone is afraid to debate them is par for the course.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   
If you ppl hate conspiracys so much why they hell are you on a conspiracy website daily argueing with strangers? Let us get on with it why do you care? So sad






top topics



 
14
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join