How do the people you know feel about 911

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by maxella1
 


I have asked them to join. They have already run into enough of your brethren in real life. They have no desire to do so online.


It's interesting that you say that because the FDNY firemen I personally know and work with agree with my ideas completely. In fact many of them were there on 9/11 and personally told me what was going on there. Also none of them appreciate when people talk for them, like for example that they knew that WTC 7 was going to collapse like it did, because that's not true.




I can see why they wouldnt open up to strangers

www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20051001023512308


This story pretty much explains it, but you would be surprised how many people within the emergency services don't believe that the whole thing went down the way we were told.

In addition to destroyed careers this topic is a very sensitive and personal to many of them to talk about. PTSD is a serious problem also.




posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by thegameisup
 


Fail in reading comprehension I see.

I let THEM guide the conversation and let them say what they wanted to. I did not tell them what to think. When they mentioned martial law in Florida ordered by Jeb Bush, I showed them where they could read for themselves what the Executive Order actually said. When they mentioned WTC7 not being hit by an aircraft, I showed them where they could read the official statements made by the members of FDNY in regards to the damage it suffered. When they mentioned the Pentagon and how "it's equipped to shoot down any jet that gets near it". I showed them the satellite view of the Pentagon and its location to Reagan National.

I didn't have to impose anything on them......i just had to show them how to look things up for themselves. They did the rest.


No fail in reading comprehension, you said you told them about the 'common mistruths' surrounding 9/11, so in doing so you are giving them only one side of the events.

You mistruths will be the questions those that do not believe the OS raise, and no doubt you were biased to the OS because it is clear that is what you support.

Did you direct them to Craig Bartmer's youtube video as an alternative to the FDNY reports, so they could have a balanced views? I doubt it. www.youtube.com...

This is full of bullcrap. I'm sure if they are talking about pentagon weapons they will know how close it is to Reagon National. Did you tell them that many people think the hole was too small for a plane, or the fact people want more CCTV footage because the FBI footage shows no plane. Nope, you fed them your OS version, you left out all the doubts that people have, and until you present them with both sides of the argument without any biased input, then you are trying to deliberately shape their thoughts. Just like the media did, and do all the time.

You failed to present all the detail to your friends, and chose only details in favour of 9/11.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

That's a lie, but whatever. You're apparently never even going to accept that the firefighters cleared the area because they knew the building would collapse. I guess they were doing that for nothing, since they secretly thought the building was going to come down in some specific way like you do?






posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by Varemia
 





Did you by chance omit the fact that WTC 7 was damaged and on fire for 7 hours? That firefighters had set up a collapse perimeter and a transit, noticing bulging and leaning of the structure?


Why are you still trying to convince people that the firefighters expected the building to completely collapse when you know that it's not true?

What happened to WTC 7 was not what they thought would happen. You act like you know what a transit is but you don't say that it only able to measure a certain area where it is pointed at. WTC 7 was a very large building and it collapsed as one unit which is not possible. I know.... the penthouse collapsed six seconds before the rest of the building did.... Still not possible.

Now show a single firefighter who was on scene and knew that the whole building was going to completely destroy itself. I cannot find anybody except you "debunkers" who is claiming that what happened to WTC 7 was anticipated.


Because it seems Varemia is obsessed with making up garbage facts about 9/11 & WTC7.

I give Varemia some real evidence, and stuff like this craig bartmer video www.youtube.com... and they ignore it and obsess over some firemen reports that are not in any video.

Varemia, post the video of the firemen saying what you claim, if not it's just words on a computer, which are worthless. What is more real, an ill NY policeman, or some virtual words about virtual firemen?

Can you see why what your are claiming is worthless at the moment, because you have nothing but virtual words on a screen to back up these virtual firemen.

Provide some evidence that is equal to craig bartmer's video, then, and only then might people bother to listen to that virtual rubbish you keep bringing up.

It's these constant virtual claims with no hard copy evidence that gives the OS less and less credibility.

Real evidence, or it didn't happen.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by thegameisup
Varemia, post the video of the firemen saying what you claim, if not it's just words on a computer, which are worthless. What is more real, an ill NY policeman, or some virtual words about virtual firemen?
...
Real evidence, or it didn't happen.

(bolding mine)

Are you seriously suggesting that the only evidence you accept is youtube videos? You realise of course that this was 11 years ago, before camera phones were remotely common? When most people bought something like this: en.wikipedia.org...

The vast majority of all evidence around 911 is 'words on a computer'. Here's an actual reliable source for the accounts, but I'm sure you'll think it's faked: graphics8.nytimes.com...



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by thegameisup
 


No, I said they started listing the common mistruths. Like I said, a failure in reading comprehension and a rash of assumptions made by you.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by thegameisup
Varemia, post the video of the firemen saying what you claim, if not it's just words on a computer, which are worthless. What is more real, an ill NY policeman, or some virtual words about virtual firemen?
...
Real evidence, or it didn't happen.

(bolding mine)

Are you seriously suggesting that the only evidence you accept is youtube videos? You realise of course that this was 11 years ago, before camera phones were remotely common? When most people bought something like this: en.wikipedia.org...

The vast majority of all evidence around 911 is 'words on a computer'. Here's an actual reliable source for the accounts, but I'm sure you'll think it's faked: graphics8.nytimes.com...


I take a video from a policeman over some words on a computer screen from unknown firemen. Yes the video is on youtube, but it didn't start out on youtube. Video testimonies from anywhere, as long as they are genuine, be it youtube or otherwise are more credible than unknown typed words, from unknown firemen.

You obviously believe any words typed on any internet website. Craig Bartmer is on camera, your firemen, where are they? Where is there recorded testimony? Present their testimony recording, from youtube, or any other video media, and I'll happily analyse it. I have a feeling you cannot substantiate those firemen's claims and provide a video testimony.

I have that link already, where are your firemen's videos? I want to see a video of them saying it, anyone can make up typed evidence, and I cannot tell if someone is lying from a PDF.

Craig Bartmer video interview (real person) vs PDF (unknown possibly fake person)

Which one looks more believable. I'll leave that to others to decide.

Please do post your video of these firemen stating that on camera. I bet you wont provide one though.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   
betrayed, scared, suspicious,

neglected, abandoned, betrayed.


left in the lurch.

no one spoke to our reed hut.

distraught

forlorn; helpless; shelter-less; under

. strong brave and wise.



edit on 7-7-2012 by BIHOTZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by thegameisup
I take a video from a policeman over some words on a computer screen from unknown firemen. Yes the video is on youtube, but it didn't start out on youtube. Video testimonies from anywhere, as long as they are genuine, be it youtube or otherwise are more credible than unknown typed words, from unknown firemen.

This is hilarious, you genuinely think that oral accounts from firefighters are superseded by a youtube video.


You obviously believe any words typed on any internet website. Craig Bartmer is on camera, your firemen, where are they? Where is there recorded testimony? Present their testimony recording, from youtube, or any other video media, and I'll happily analyse it. I have a feeling you cannot substantiate those firemen's claims and provide a video testimony.

Of course I can't, I have no idea if they were even videoed. If you think only videos are valid evidence then I can't imagine you've ever worked in any field that requires accountability.


I have that link already, where are your firemen's videos? I want to see a video of them saying it, anyone can make up typed evidence, and I cannot tell if someone is lying from a PDF.

You clearly can't tell if someone is lying from a video either, so congratulations on undermining your point.

I can't believe you even felt it was appropriate to post that.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 





The vast majority of all evidence around 911 is 'words on a computer'. Here's an actual reliable source for the accounts, but I'm sure you'll think it's faked: graphics8.nytimes.com...


Excellent source, I read almost all of them and so far all that they were saying is that WTC 7 had been damaged and on fire and they were concerned that it was unsafe and looked like it could collapse. That is the damaged area could collapse NOT the entire 47story skyscraper Collapse.

But you already know that, just refuse to admit it .



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
Excellent source, I read almost all of them and so far all that they were saying is that WTC 7 had been damaged and on fire and they were concerned that it was unsafe and looked like it could collapse. That is the damaged area could collapse NOT the entire 47story skyscraper Collapse.

But you already know that, just refuse to admit it .

Are you joking? Here is the person in charge detailing exactly what and why he did it:

sites.google.com...

Please maxella, stop making claims of impropriety. They're utterly without merit and I assure you I have studied 911 longer and harder than you.

I originally had my doubts, especially about the Pentagon. My mind was changed by research, and so I am acutely aware of the dangers of confirmation bias. This is precisely what I fear you are succumbing to. I'll reserve judgement though as that is the polite thing to do.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by exponent
 





The vast majority of all evidence around 911 is 'words on a computer'. Here's an actual reliable source for the accounts, but I'm sure you'll think it's faked: graphics8.nytimes.com...


Excellent source, I read almost all of them and so far all that they were saying is that WTC 7 had been damaged and on fire and they were concerned that it was unsafe and looked like it could collapse. That is the damaged area could collapse NOT the entire 47story skyscraper Collapse.

But you already know that, just refuse to admit it .


Exactly Maxella, bang on the money.

The OS'ers here will never admit they are wrong, they just make stuff up to fit the OS.

Craig Bartmer in his video that can be found on youtube contradicts the OS false claims, and those that lie to keep the OS going, but there chose to ignore that video because it makes them look foolish.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


Address the craig bartmer video then, his video account contradicts everything you claim.

What you got? Nothing I doubt.




posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by maxella1
Excellent source, I read almost all of them and so far all that they were saying is that WTC 7 had been damaged and on fire and they were concerned that it was unsafe and looked like it could collapse. That is the damaged area could collapse NOT the entire 47story skyscraper Collapse.

But you already know that, just refuse to admit it .

Are you joking? Here is the person in charge detailing exactly what and why he did it:

sites.google.com...

Please maxella, stop making claims of impropriety. They're utterly without merit and I assure you I have studied 911 longer and harder than you.

I originally had my doubts, especially about the Pentagon. My mind was changed by research, and so I am acutely aware of the dangers of confirmation bias. This is precisely what I fear you are succumbing to. I'll reserve judgement though as that is the polite thing to do.





The reasons are as follows: 1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse. 2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7. 3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels. 4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them. For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed. Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.


1 - Where did this statement from Chief Nigro come from ? Please don't tell me that he wrote this statement directly for this "debunking" website.

2 - It clearly states that the collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors. how many large columns did the building 7 have on the North side? Because even if it had only a few undamaged columns on the north side the building would collapse partially.

3 - What makes you think you know more about it than i do? All I see is that you think you know more but that doesn't make it true. This "source" you just provided is no better than Infowars. Why are you such a hypocrite?



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
1 - Where did this statement from Chief Nigro come from ? Please don't tell me that he wrote this statement directly for this "debunking" website.

It was solicited by 'ref' on the JREF forums. I'm not sure if posting a link is ok but the title of the thread is "Chief of Department FDNY (ret.) Daniel Nigro Addresses WTC 7 Conspiracy Theories".


2 - It clearly states that the collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors. how many large columns did the building 7 have on the North side? Because even if it had only a few undamaged columns on the north side the building would collapse partially.

What analysis do you base this off?


3 - What makes you think you know more about it than i do? All I see is that you think you know more but that doesn't make it true. This "source" you just provided is no better than Infowars. Why are you such a hypocrite?

Because you make silly mistakes like this. You claim that I know something which is entirely an invention of your own mind and then deny evidence that exists against it.

If you think JREF is on the same level as Infowars then you've clearly lost any sense of balance. Feel free to ask the moderators there to confirm that the letter is legitimate, or better yet go talk to Chief Nigro yourself.
edit on 7/7/12 by exponent because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by thegameisup
 


Do you ever stop posting youtube videos with one or two lines describing what is in them? What exactly would you like me to address? I've already told you that I think he suffered a traumatic event and is trying to come to terms with it. If you have specific questions then post specific questions please.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





Actually, I try to be as fair as possible. Sometimes I mention that occasionally one or two people show up claiming that it was space lasers, or that there weren't planes at all, but for the most part I stick to explaining the demolition standpoint. It is the most popular theory here, if I'm not mistaken.


I would like to make a suggestion... How about telling your friends about the fake investigation by the 9/11 Commission and all the conflicts of interest the commissioners had and the pressure from the Bush administration not to dig too deep.....? Or that they concluded that it was the fault of "failure of imagination" because according to them Nobody could even imagine that it could happen. (except that it's a complete lie as you know)





My problem is when your facts conflict with my facts.


Life's Tough.. Get over it... People will disagree with you, especially regarding 9/11 since the government failed to investigate it. Your facts are not necessarily true. I read the same official crap you did, but it contradicts the reality. I'm a New Yorker, I watched the buildings collapse with my own two eyes from across the east river, I went to Ground Zero few days later, I talked to people who were desperately looking for their friends and loved once, I work with people who were there and survived. And i researched the events leading up to 9/11. 9/11 Commission Report is a complete and deliberate lie.




They are as bad as the Ancient Aliens program on History Channel. Their question is actually a hidden declarative. "Could this have been a demolition? Could all of the officials be lying to us about everything?" It makes you assume that there's no other possibility, and it instills a distrust of all evidence, making it so that you can dismiss anything that contradicts your views as planted by the government.


I don't know about Ancient Aliens, but peoples questions regarding 9/11 haven't been answered yet. As far as I'm concerned YOU are the one trying to convince everybody that there is no other possibility

My problem is when your facts conflict with my facts.
Get my point?




Unfortunately, you guys somehow manage to come up with things that can't actually be proven.


This is true entirely in your own head only. There's a lot of proof for the cover up and lies in the 9/11 Commission Report.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
This is true entirely in your own head only. There's a lot of proof for the cover up and lies in the 9/11 Commission Report.

Who is arguing against this? I only see people agreeing with you that there definitely could be cover ups and lies relating to Bush and his administration's activities.

I don't however, see any evidence that the 911 commission covered up any controlled demolition, or that there's any evidence for that related to the commission at all.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 





It was solicited by 'ref' on the JREF forums. I'm not sure if posting a link is ok but the title of the thread is "Chief of Department FDNY (ret.) Daniel Nigro Addresses WTC 7 Conspiracy Theories".


Oh yes JREF.. fair and balanced, like Fox News. No bias over there at all... Why don't you find the original link to his statement and then we'll talk about it.




What analysis do you base this off?


Logic and experience.. We discussed it before don't you remember? I'm okay with agreeing to disagree with you.




Because you make silly mistakes like this. You claim that I know something which is entirely an invention of your own mind and then deny evidence that exists against it.


Are you talking about this?


That is the damaged area could collapse NOT the entire 47story skyscraper Collapse. But you already know that, just refuse to admit it .

If you are then show me who testified that a complete collapse was expected, and I'll admit that you are right. Or you just don't understand what is the difference between what the firemen were saying and what actually happened to building 7?




If you think JREF is on the same level as Infowars then you've clearly lost any sense of balance. Feel free to ask the moderators there to confirm that the letter is legitimate, or better yet go talk to Chief Nigro yourself.


Again you are being a hypocrite... What is it that debunkers love to say, I think it's that if you want your source to be taken seriously you need to back it up with facts. So please get the confirmation of that letter legitimacy if you want it to be taken seriously.. If you don't want to that's okay with me, i'll just add this to the list of made up "facts" to back up the official conspiracy theory.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by maxella1
This is true entirely in your own head only. There's a lot of proof for the cover up and lies in the 9/11 Commission Report.

Who is arguing against this? I only see people agreeing with you that there definitely could be cover ups and lies relating to Bush and his administration's activities.

I don't however, see any evidence that the 911 commission covered up any controlled demolition, or that there's any evidence for that related to the commission at all.


NIST and FEMA were responsible for investigating WTC collapses and as I provided in another thread reasons to suspect that both agencies were under the same pressure from the White House as the Commission was, We have no reason to expect that any evidence of anything not approved by the White House would be included in their final reports.





new topics
 
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join