NY Fire Department's 9/11 Radio Dispatches

page: 5
6
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 21 2012 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by 4hero
Of course the building was breaking up, explosions were going off even before the plane even hit.


Citation please. Where's the evidence of this statement?


The buildings did collapse right?




posted on May, 21 2012 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by 4hero
Of course the building was breaking up, explosions were going off even before the plane even hit.


Citation please. Where's the evidence of this statement?


The buildings did collapse right?



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by 4hero
Of course the building was breaking up, explosions were going off even before the plane even hit.


Citation please. Where's the evidence of this statement?


The buildings did collapse right?


No, I mean for the part where you said "explosions were going off even before the plane even hit." I'd like a citation.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
You probably need to sit down for this one because what I’m about to tell you is not good.

Hope you are sitting down, here it goes.

You are a conspiracy theorist.. I know it;s hard to believe but there is more

you are posting on a conspiracy forum.

Shocker I know


Yeah, I've never denied that I believe and theorize about conspiracies. Some are pretty likely and supportable by past government actions. It's just 9/11 where I can't see the conspiracy as plausible.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by maxella1
You probably need to sit down for this one because what I’m about to tell you is not good.

Hope you are sitting down, here it goes.

You are a conspiracy theorist.. I know it;s hard to believe but there is more

you are posting on a conspiracy forum.

Shocker I know


Yeah, I've never denied that I believe and theorize about conspiracies. Some are pretty likely and supportable by past government actions. It's just 9/11 where I can't see the conspiracy as plausible.


which conspiracies are pretty likely and what past actions support them?



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
which conspiracies are pretty likely and what past actions support them?


Assassinations, chemical testings, nuclear stuff, secret invasions, manipulation of the media, etc. It's in the history books, honestly. The truth usually comes out within 30-50 years. It helps that the old asses that did it die first. Who knows, maybe I'll be completely wrong in the end about the 9/11 thing. I just can't see it right now based on the evidence available to me.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

No, I mean for the part where you said "explosions were going off even before the plane even hit." I'd like a citation.


Go to youtube, type in WTC explosions, and Explosions before planes hit WTC 9/11 and you'll find a variety of videos in the list that have witnesses stating that they heard explosions before the plane hit. Also check out anything to do with basement explosions, these also happened before the 'planes' hit. I cannot be bothered to post a series of videos, done it many times in these threads already, if I point you in the right direction you can enjoy all the videos for yourself. You'll have to listen to them all the way through though because sometimes the info comes towards the end, but they're not that long. Happy watching!



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by maxella1
which conspiracies are pretty likely and what past actions support them?


Assassinations, chemical testings, nuclear stuff, secret invasions, manipulation of the media, etc. It's in the history books, honestly. The truth usually comes out within 30-50 years. It helps that the old asses that did it die first. Who knows, maybe I'll be completely wrong in the end about the 9/11 thing. I just can't see it right now based on the evidence available to me.


So the fact 3 steel framed buildings came down in a way that resembled controlled demolitions doesn't make you suspicious!?! I'm assuming by the way you are talking that you are fairly new to researching 9/11. Take some time to read through the threads here and then come back if you have any questions.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by 4hero
 


Brilliant illustration of my point. You KNOW who did it and it wasn't Osama.......witch hunt


Typical OS hugger response, avoid all questions from 'truthers' at all costs! You lot do it all the time, because you cannot answer them! How on earth do you expect anyone to take you seriously if you cannot answer simple questions. I'd give up on the 9/11 threads if I were you, seems like you're not cut out for these kind of debates if you cannot answer simple questions...

Here goes the same questions again, hopefully you will attempt to answer them one by one this time, instead of the weak unrelated one-line quote you left...

How have you watched me scream for years?! Can one scream through writing?!

You come out with some rubbish statements! And you expect us to take you seriously!?!

We don't want to know who was responsible, we know who did this, and not Bin Laden either!

We want a proper investigation, not some flimsy effort by TPTB!

VERBATIM: "Normally, because of crap they read on the Internet"

You sound like that first responder actor that said 'the plane went Rrrrrrreeeeem, right into the building, then it collpased due to structual failure from the heat of the fire' Are you him?!

I don't accept your 'facts' because you haven't presented one thing that is believable as yet.

Ok, I'll be waiting for you to answer each one thoroughly, if you don't then please refrain from interacting with me because I cannot take someone like you seriously if you dodge serious questions....



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 08:03 AM
link   
ATS should ban this topic until something significant comes out. Just a bunch of rhetoric and turds bickering back and forth about a story filled with holes, that no one on this board has any credibility of filling in.

There are current issues just as bad as this going on, and have far more impact on our lives at this very moment.

9/11 topics are nothing but a waste of time and energy.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by MmmPie
ATS should ban this topic until something significant comes out. Just a bunch of rhetoric and turds bickering back and forth about a story filled with holes, that no one on this board has any credibility of filling in.

There are current issues just as bad as this going on, and have far more impact on our lives at this very moment.

9/11 topics are nothing but a waste of time and energy.



Well go away then, keep away from the forum if you do not like to see people debating it.

11 years down the line people are discussing it still, what does that say about the OS?

It obviously doesn't hold up too well if people are still talking about it after all this time.

As for turds, speak for yourself! As for crdeibility, there is plenty of credibility in our research, that's why there are paid shills here trying to disrupt people digging up the real story.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 08:35 AM
link   
Don't get me wrong, I dn't believe the garbage the government told the public. But for eleven years nothing has come of anything, except for a few whistle blowers rehashing things people on ATS have known for years.

Also, I don't hangout in individual forums, I use the Recent Posts as my homepage, and seeing 9/11 topics everyday I wake up gets old real quick. I'm not trying to tell you guys not to believe what you believe, but quit arguing about moot points time and time again.

I haven't researched 9/11 in a few years, and I bet any new information that has come out since then is nothing ground breaking.

We may as well start debating the Salem witch trials while were at it.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 



Assassinations, chemical testings, nuclear stuff, secret invasions, manipulation of the media, etc. It's in the history books, honestly. The truth usually comes out within 30-50 years. It helps that the old asses that did it die first. Who knows, maybe I'll be completely wrong in the end about the 9/11 thing. I just can't see it right now based on the evidence available to me.


The problem I have is with people that say that nothing will ever change their minds that 9/11 wasn't an inside job. I have asked some embedded debunkers here if they think that some time in the future somebody might confess of being involved in shooting down United 93. And the answer was absolutely not. To me these people are the problem.

I agree with you that truth comes out after many years pass by. If you don't see anything right now that supports some kind of an inside job, that's cool with me. Just remember that to the government we are nothing more then a social security number. History shows that all governments on the planet are willing to kill, rob and torture their citizens for some sick agenda.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 06:03 AM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


you already know the story...your not willing to accept it....you were attacked by MOSSAD who wanted you to think it was islamic terroists.....



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
I have asked some embedded debunkers here if they think that some time in the future somebody might confess of being involved in shooting down United 93. And the answer was absolutely not. To me these people are the problem.

One of my hobbies is to pick a random claim that I see, and check it out. What I found with this claim is there's only one search history result for you asking a 'debunker' about United 93: www.abovetopsecret.com...

It's possible I have missed one, but even then the answer to this was not "absolutely not". However, it's not quite as clear as you paint it even then, you actually asked about this statement:

30 to a hundred years from now,an old pilot will testify that he shot that airplane down out of feeling guilty

The response was not 'absolutely not', it was:

Do I think so? No. A sane person will look at the evidence and realize what happened.

This is hardly a complete and total rejection, and is not an unreasonable position. I personally don't think that anyone will come out in the future and say they shot down U93, because I don't think anyone did. That isn't an irrational or unreasonable position.

I find it interesting how events and statements slowly morph. I've spotted quite a few people making claims which seem to have filtered through and been distorted in a 'chinese whispers' sense. In this case though I think you've just remembered things with rose tinted glasses. If there's some I have missed then maybe I am rushing to judgement.

Just a thought.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 06:51 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


Maxella freely admits to being here for fun. That's fine, obviously, and I wouldn't say I was here for any serious reason so I can't criticise. But he isn't doing anything except winding people up so you can't really expect to get a serious treatment of evidence from him.
edit on 29-5-2012 by TrickoftheShade because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by exponent
 


Maxella freely admits to being here for fun. That's fine, obviously, and I wouldn't say I was here for any serious reason so I can't criticise. But he isn't doing anything except winding people up so you can't really expect to get a serious treatment of evidence from him.
edit on 29-5-2012 by TrickoftheShade because: (no reason given)


What do you mean I'm not doing anything except winding people up? I post information and let people interpret it anyway they like. My mind is made up and no matter what you say isn't going to change it because i believe my own eyes when i see building 7 imploding. The thing is that you don't have to agree with me at all, i don't care. People can think for themselves and I let them.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by maxella1
I have asked some embedded debunkers here if they think that some time in the future somebody might confess of being involved in shooting down United 93. And the answer was absolutely not. To me these people are the problem.

One of my hobbies is to pick a random claim that I see, and check it out. What I found with this claim is there's only one search history result for you asking a 'debunker' about United 93: www.abovetopsecret.com...

It's possible I have missed one, but even then the answer to this was not "absolutely not". However, it's not quite as clear as you paint it even then, you actually asked about this statement:

30 to a hundred years from now,an old pilot will testify that he shot that airplane down out of feeling guilty

The response was not 'absolutely not', it was:

Do I think so? No. A sane person will look at the evidence and realize what happened.

This is hardly a complete and total rejection, and is not an unreasonable position. I personally don't think that anyone will come out in the future and say they shot down U93, because I don't think anyone did. That isn't an irrational or unreasonable position.

I find it interesting how events and statements slowly morph. I've spotted quite a few people making claims which seem to have filtered through and been distorted in a 'chinese whispers' sense. In this case though I think you've just remembered things with rose tinted glasses. If there's some I have missed then maybe I am rushing to judgement.

Just a thought.


Thanks for looking into it. So since I think that sometime in the future somebody might admit to shooting down United 93, I'm insane?



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
Thanks for looking into it. So since I think that sometime in the future somebody might admit to shooting down United 93, I'm insane?

Nope, just wrong. Six Sigma was particularly harsh, but unless someone just comes out of the blue and admits it then it seems his point was that the preponderance of evidence suggests it wasn't shot down.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by maxella1
Thanks for looking into it. So since I think that sometime in the future somebody might admit to shooting down United 93, I'm insane?

Nope, just wrong. Six Sigma was particularly harsh, but unless someone just comes out of the blue and admits it then it seems his point was that the preponderance of evidence suggests it wasn't shot down.


Please explain how you are so sure that I'm wrong.

Didn't Chaney admit in his book that he gave the order to shoot down? Why was there multiple debris fields?





new topics
top topics
 
6
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join