An Open Letter to FDNY Firefighter John Schroeder from a debunker

I came across this website with a letter to a firefighter John Schroeder. Schroeder seems to agree that there were explosives inside the WTC.

This particular debunker has a thing for the loose change guys.

The introduction in this letter is awesome.


Dear John,

When I read Manny Badillo's article about you, and saw Dylan Avery's video interview, I immediately knew that I could help you make sense of your 9/11 experience, because some of your misconceptions are very big and very basic.

I appeal to your intelligence and your honor and ask you to to distance yourself from these apologists for the terrorists who murdered your brothers and my neighbors.

Another way of putting it would be " John I know you were there, but you're too stupid so let me explain what you lived through. Even though I wasn't there I know better so trust me and if you don't trust me you are with the terrorists who killed your brothers."

I wonder how many eyewitnesses received these letters...

I couldn't find if John Schroeder responded to this letter or if he changed his mind about what was happening, but I found a recently uploaded video where he states that it's been 7 years since 9/11 and seems to stick to his original story.



As for the website, I'd say it's worth a read...

He's sticking to his story because it's what happened to him...and what happened. There was explosions going off.
How dare this guy....I totally agree with what you said..... Great find..thanks

Here's the original Loose Change interview with John Schroeder:




Of things to note, he says that well after the first plane hit the north tower, elevators were exploding. He also states that while in a stairwell in the north tower, they got "bounced around like pin balls" from an explosion on the lower levels of the north tower while the second plane struck the south tower.

He also describes the further destruction to the lobby of the north tower well after both planes had already struck.

He also makes a very interesting note about the 2-to-3-inch-thick glass of the lobbies of the towers that was blown out and that it looked like a bomb went off in the lobby.

And as a trained firefighter, he is of the opinion that the towers collapsed by other means than just fire and plane impacts.

So sayeth the evidence as well.

reply to post by _BoneZ_

Of things to note, he says that well after the first plane hit the north tower, elevators were exploding.

In the "A man on fire" part...

John Schroeder has expressed surprise (naturally) and perhaps some bewilderment, at what caused the man in the street and others in the north tower lobby to catch fire. From the Badillo article: "We first assembled on West Street, where we saw someone burnt beyond recognition. We were like ‘What is going on here?' "

Terrence Rivera, who had just gotten off duty and was outside Ten House talking to Schroeder when the north tower was hit, rode to the scene on the back step of Engine 10. He has this to say.:

"As I got off the back -- the back step, there were a few individuals that were civilians that were outside that were burnt. There was a -- he wasn't a regular security guard. He had a weapon on him. I don't know if he was FBI or Secret Service and he was trying to put the pants out on one individual that was conscious. His pants were still smoldering. I took the can, fire extinguisher off the truck and then sprayed down the pants on the person that was still conscious.

At that time, I had asked him where did this individual come from. He told me when the plane had hit, a fire ball had shot down the elevator shaft and had blown people out of the lobby."

I just love these unnamed experts telling people what just happens minutes a go... Exactly what ended up as a "fact" in official reports.

never mind....... delete.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


never mind i got it

reply to post by _BoneZ_

Of things to note, he says that well after the first plane hit the north tower, elevators were exploding. He also states that while in a stairwell in the north tower, they got "bounced around like pin balls" from an explosion on the lower levels of the north tower while the second plane struck the south tower

The reason elevators exploded was from jet fuel pouring down thr shafts ignited in a fireball

There were numerous people either killed or seriously burned in the lobby from the fireballs coming from elevator shafts

It is called a deflagration - extremely rapid burning of a fuel/oxygen mixture

Here are numerous accounts of the scene in lobby

sites.google.com...

Notice there were plenty of burn casualties from the fireball yet no blast or shapnel injuries one wound expect
from a high explosive device

Firefighter John Morabito of ladder 10, which is just 200 yards from the north tower.
“Just inside the front entrance, Morabito found two victims of the fireball. A man, already dead, was pushed against a wall, his clothes gone, his eyeglasses blackened, his tongue lying on the floor next to him. The other was a woman, with no clothes, her hair burned off, her eyes sealed.

“The woman, she sat up. I’m yelling to her, ‘Don’t worry, we’re going to help you,’” Morabito said. “She sat up and was trying to talk, but her throat had closed up. She died right there.” www.fdnytenhouse.com...

Mercedes Rivera: I saw a burned woman in a sitting position in the lobby, as if she was still typing behind a desk.... She was already dead.” .

Firefighter Peter Blaich
As we got to the third floor of the B stairway, we forced open an elevator door which was burnt on all three sides. The only thing that was remaining was the hoistway door. And inside the elevator were about I didn’t recognize them initially, but a guy from 1 Truck said oh my God, those are people. They were pretty incinerated. And I remember the overpowering smell of kerosene. That’s when Lieutenant Foti said oh, that’s the jet fuel. I remember it smelled like if you’re camping and you drop a kerosene lamp.

The same thing happened to the elevators in the main lobby. They were basically blown out. I do’nt recall if I actually saw people in there. What got me initially in the lobby was that as soon as we went in, all the windows were blown out, and there were one or two burning cars outside. And there were burn victims on the street there, walking around. We walked through this giant blown-out window into the lobby.

There was a lady there screaming that she didn’t know how she got burnt. She was just in the lobby and then next thing she knew she was on fire. She was burnt bad. And somebody came over with a fire extinguisher and was putting water on her.

That’s the first thing that got me. That and in front of one of the big elevator banks in the lobby was a desk and I definitely made out one of the corpses to be a security guard because he had a security label on his jacket. I’m assuming that maybe he was at a table still in a chair and almost completely incinerated, charred all over his body, definitely dead. And you could make out like a security tag on his jacket. And I remember seeing the table was melted, but he was still fused in the chair and that elevator bank was melted, so I imagine the jet fuel must have blown right down the elevator shaft and I guess caught the security guard at a table, I guess at some type of checkpoint

As for shaking he experienced when aircraft hit South Tower

Lets see - the aircraft impact reqistered on a seismograph 20 miles, so what do think someone only 100 ft away is going to feel

reply to post by _BoneZ_


When you say "well after" the impacts, is there anything more specific? The possible explanations vary wildly between it being a half-a-minute or fifteen minutes.

Originally posted by thedman
As for shaking he experienced when aircraft hit South Tower

Lets see - the aircraft impact reqistered on a seismograph 20 miles, so what do think someone only 100 ft away is going to feel

It's no wonder why people can't figure out or don't want to hear what really happened on 9/11 because there is so much bad information being thrown around like it's fact.

There's no possible way an aircraft impact a quarter mile in the sky can trigger a seismograph 20-miles away. Seismometers measure waves and motion in the ground.

Take a 12-foot steel beam, for instance. Take a steel hammer and pound on one end of the beam. If you place your hand 6-inches away from the beating hammer, you can feel the full force of the blow. If you go to the other end of the steel beam, you will barely be able to feel the hammer blows because the beam dissipates the impact waves.

A plane hitting a quarter-mile up in a steel building would not be felt hardly at all at ground level because the steel structure would dissipate the shock-wave of the impact.

Now, if there was magically enough force for an aircraft impact to register on a seismograph 20-miles away, the impact would've obliterated the tops of those buildings, and likely shattered every window in those buildings and surrounding buildings.


What really happened was that explosives at or below ground level at the time of the plane impacts were detonated. You know, kinda like many witnesses state happened?

Even in the video in the OP, William Rodriguez stated he heard and felt an explosion coming from the mechanical room below him.



Let's see what else happened below Rodriguez:

Mike Pecoraro... The 36 year-old father of two stopped and bought breakfast on the way into One World Trade Center and changed into his work clothes.

Deep below the tower,Mike Pecoraro was suddenly interrupted...

His co-worker made the call and reported back to Mike that he was told that the Assistant Chief did not know what happened but that the whole building seemed to shake and there was a loud explosion... By this time, however, the room they were working in began to fill with a white smoke.

The two decided to ascend the stairs to the C level, to a small machine shop where Vito Deleo and David Williams were supposed to be working. When the two arrived at the C level, they found the machine shop gone.

"There was nothing there but rubble, "Mike said. "We're talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press, gone!"

The two made their way to the parking garage, but found that it, too, was gone. "There were no walls, there was rubble on the floor, and you can't see anything" he said.

They decided to ascend two more levels to the building's lobby. As they ascended to the B Level, one floor above, they were astonished to see a steel and concrete fire door that weighed about 300 pounds, wrinkled up "like a piece of aluminum foil" and lying on the floor. "They got us again," Mike told his co-worker, referring to the terrorist attack at the center in 1993... He was convinced a bomb had gone off in the building... Mike ascended to the Lobby Level where he met Arti DelBianco, a member of his work crew.

He walked out into the main lobby of the building, seeing it for the first time.

"When I walked out into the lobby, it was incredible," he recalled. "The whole lobby was soot and black, elevator doors were missing. The marble was missing off some of the walls. 20-foot section of marble, 20 by 10 foot sections of marble, gone from the walls. The west windows were all gone. They were missing. These are tremendous windows. They were just gone. Broken glass everywhere, the revolving doors were all broken and their glass was gone."

So:

* The machine shop was in rubble and the 50-ton hydraulic press gone.

* The parking garage destroyed.

* A steel and concrete fire door that weighed about 300 pounds, wrinkled up "like a piece of aluminum foil" and lying on the floor.

* Elevator doors blown off.

* 20x10-foot sections of marble blown off the walls.

* Two or three-inch-thick lobby windows blown out.


That much destruction on that many floors and registering on a seismograph 20-miles away can only have been done by explosives. Deflagration, according to definition, does not cause very much explosive damage.

Also, if enough jet fuel poured down the thousand foot elevator shaft to cause a fireball that blew out the three inch thick windows in the lobby, well, that would have been about ALL the fuel in the plane. So then where did the fuel that caused the magical fires that caused a steel framed building to collapse for the first and only time in history come from? You know, the not all that flammable jet fuel that can make millions of tons of concrete turn instantly to dust?

Originally posted by CaptChaos
Also, if enough jet fuel poured down the thousand foot elevator shaft to cause a fireball that blew out the three inch thick windows in the lobby, well, that would have been about ALL the fuel in the plane. So then where did the fuel that caused the magical fires that caused a steel framed building to collapse for the first and only time in history come from? You know, the not all that flammable jet fuel that can make millions of tons of concrete turn instantly to dust?

The capability of fuel to explode actually depends on the percentage of it in the air. Different amounts ignite differently.

You cannot simply dismiss an entire possibility just because it's outside what you are comfortable imagining.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Thanks BoneZ for your professional level recollection and dismantling of the facts of that horrendous day. I really appreciate people like you who bring the uncomfortable aspects of the story people seem to conveniently forget about, such as William Rodriguez and others who were in the WTC sub-basement levels, to the forefront of our minds. Their testimony is incredibly critical, it is beyond important.

Thank you, thank you, thank you for fighting the good fight. The people who died that day will thank you themselves some day very far in the future when we are all once again reconnected with each other in the afterlife.

And thank you maxella1 for this thread. I think it is telling the form this letter takes, belittling Shroeder's intelligence and experience as a firefighter. This man knows what he is talking about.

Originally posted by maxella1
Another way of putting it would be " John I know you were there, but you're too stupid so let me explain what you lived through. Even though I wasn't there I know better so trust me and if you don't trust me you are with the terrorists who killed your brothers."

Maxella,
I believe you were not at the site. Could you tell me in which order the towers collapsed? If an eyewitness contradicts you, who is wrong?

I love the OP's video at the 11:53 mark as they speak about debunkers and 9/11 "experts". Really no matter what side of the fence you sit on, it is a message for all of us. How can you watch it on TV and then tell this man what was happening right next to him?

The letter however does have some merit to it in the things that are pointed out. However it is always more about what people think happened. As I have said a million times over, the biggest mistake "truthers" make is trying to explain what exactly happened. The fact is, we don't know. It is a huge disservice to even attempt to come up with a theory. The only thing "truthers" really have to do is show that there are questions which have not been answered. That's it. If the goal is to get a real investigation, that's all you have to do. If there are any questions at all- the investigation is not complete. If there are any questions that have not been answered- the investigation is not complete.

On that point, it amazes me how even the "debunkers" or OS camp even admit there are questions remaining, but yet there is no need for an investigation and the "truthers" are insane because the investigation is complete. It just makes no sense to me.

Originally posted by MrWendal
I love the OP's video at the 11:53 mark as they speak about debunkers and 9/11 "experts". Really no matter what side of the fence you sit on, it is a message for all of us. How can you watch it on TV and then tell this man what was happening right next to him?

It's not a case of simply watching it on TV. There's been a decade of investigation and research, accounting and accounts. We know for example that people mentioned elevator explosions and jet fuel in extensive detail. Someone just arriving on site does not have that information and the letter is pointing out how immoral it was to not provide this information.

The letter however does have some merit to it in the things that are pointed out. However it is always more about what people think happened. As I have said a million times over, the biggest mistake "truthers" make is trying to explain what exactly happened. The fact is, we don't know. It is a huge disservice to even attempt to come up with a theory. The only thing "truthers" really have to do is show that there are questions which have not been answered. That's it. If the goal is to get a real investigation, that's all you have to do. If there are any questions at all- the investigation is not complete. If there are any questions that have not been answered- the investigation is not complete.

This is really not true though. This is the same logic that says because all transitional fossils haven't been found, then Evolution isn't the only possible answer. This is false for exactly the same reasons.

On that point, it amazes me how even the "debunkers" or OS camp even admit there are questions remaining, but yet there is no need for an investigation and the "truthers" are insane because the investigation is complete. It just makes no sense to me.

Let me try and make it clearer. Nobody is saying that every fact has been found and that no investigation is needed whatsoever. What is being said is that there is no need for a new investigation that covers every single aspect of the attacks and collapses.

Just as Evolution is proven through incomplete evidence, it's clear that the principal facts of 911 are proven without complete evidence. We will never know the precise internal events in the towers, nor precisely the collapse mechanisms of every element. These unanswered questions however don't change the aggregate physics of the event. We know now that the speed of collapse is perfectly reasonable, we know that the initiation of collapse has a viable mechanism and evidence not explained by any other theory. There are many facts

I don't agree that "truthers" should avoid making claims, this is after all the basis of any theory. The problem is that people are near religiously obsessed with their individual claims. To such an extent that they will deny the existence of evidence in order to continue believing in them.

How did the buildings turn to dust and blow away in the wind?? That's the unanswered question. They were dustified! LOOK DUST EVERYWHERE! That doesn't happen in a normal collapse or controlled demolition!!! In those events the concrete breaks down in to boulder and rock sized pieces, NOT DUST.

but in this case where seeing like 80% of it turned to dust and was blown away by the wind. How can you explain that??? All the laws of physics in a collapsing structure cannot account for all that dust. It had to be some kind of energy weapon.

Originally posted by r2d246
How did the buildings turn to dust and blow away in the wind?? That's the unanswered question. They were dustified! LOOK DUST EVERYWHERE! That doesn't happen in a normal collapse or controlled demolition!!! In those events the concrete breaks down in to boulder and rock sized pieces, NOT DUST.

but in this case where seeing like 80% of it turned to dust and was blown away by the wind. How can you explain that??? All the laws of physics in a collapsing structure cannot account for all that dust. It had to be some kind of energy weapon.

It didn't turn into dust. They carried around half a million tons of debris away from the site and spent an incredibly long period digging the debris out.

Lots of dust happens in any collapse, this is the largest collapse in history by a long margin times two. That's why there is so much dust.

Originally posted by exponent
It's not a case of simply watching it on TV. There's been a decade of investigation and research, accounting and accounts. We know for example that people mentioned elevator explosions and jet fuel in extensive detail. Someone just arriving on site does not have that information and the letter is pointing out how immoral it was to not provide this information.

And how do you tell a man after a decade of research and investigation what was happening right next to him if you were not there? Fact is, you do not know, you were not there, you are not a witness. Anything you offer is speculation and theory. If I tell you today that as I walked down the street a bird flew into my head knocking my glasses off into the street breaking them- how can you argue with me on the speed of the speed of the bird or the angle taken? You weren't there. You didn't see it. You do not know.

This is really not true though. This is the same logic that says because all transitional fossils haven't been found, then Evolution isn't the only possible answer. This is false for exactly the same reasons.

I must be missing something. What this comment has to do with my opinion on the problems with the "truth" movement, I will never know. If the goal of the movement is to prove that a new investigation is needed, then all one must show is that the questions have not been answered. Fact is there are still many questions. As an example, I could ask why would the President say explosives were used to trap people on the upper floors if explosives were not used according to the Official Report? That is a perfectly legitimate question. You have an Official report telling us what happened and then the highest Public Official in the country contradicting that same report on national TV. How does that happen? Were explosives used or weren't they?

Just as Evolution is proven through incomplete evidence, it's clear that the principal facts of 911 are proven without complete evidence. We will never know the precise internal events in the towers, nor precisely the collapse mechanisms of every element. These unanswered questions however don't change the aggregate physics of the event. We know now that the speed of collapse is perfectly reasonable, we know that the initiation of collapse has a viable mechanism and evidence not explained by any other theory. There are many facts

There are many facts and many contradictions as well. Again, the President himself claims explosives were used and were planted by "operatives". So you can hint around all day long about how fire melted steel causing it to implode on itself and disintegrate the concrete into a fine powder, but your contradicting the President's own words.

I don't agree that "truthers" should avoid making claims, this is after all the basis of any theory. The problem is that people are near religiously obsessed with their individual claims. To such an extent that they will deny the existence of evidence in order to continue believing in them.

Thank you for making my point. "Truthers" should not offer any theory at all, all they should be showing is that questions have not been answered, let the investigation provide the theory. Let the evidence tell the story.

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by maxella1
Another way of putting it would be " John I know you were there, but you're too stupid so let me explain what you lived through. Even though I wasn't there I know better so trust me and if you don't trust me you are with the terrorists who killed your brothers."

Maxella,
I believe you were not at the site. Could you tell me in which order the towers collapsed? If an eyewitness contradicts you, who is wrong?

What are you talking about man? Nobody is arguing about in which order they collapsed. It's what was going on inside them before they collapsed, and i was not in there so I believe what professional firefighters say. As you know John Schroeder is not the only one that heard and felt explosions.

Originally posted by MrWendal
And how do you tell a man after a decade of research and investigation what was happening right next to him if you were not there? Fact is, you do not know, you were not there, you are not a witness.

Nobody is telling him that he didn't see what he saw. What is being said is that he inferred and was confused about things because of the incomplete information, and that it was immoral not to tell him what is now known. Nothing more.

Anything you offer is speculation and theory. If I tell you today that as I walked down the street a bird flew into my head knocking my glasses off into the street breaking them- how can you argue with me on the speed of the speed of the bird or the angle taken? You weren't there. You didn't see it. You do not know.

If I told you that the North Tower collapsed first. What would you say to me?

If the goal of the movement is to prove that a new investigation is needed, then all one must show is that the questions have not been answered. Fact is there are still many questions.

There will always be many questions. That is my point. There are many thousands of missing transitional fossils. They will always be missing because a find introduces two more. The lack of complete information in no way requires a 'new investigation'.

You have an Official report telling us what happened and then the highest Public Official in the country contradicting that same report on national TV. How does that happen? Were explosives used or weren't they?

They weren't, the only 'explosive' was the plane and its fuel. If this was a conspiracy, then Bush wouldn't be contradicting anything. Occam's Razor favours bad wording over anything more nefarious.

your contradicting the President's own words.

I do that all the time, like when I say the Iraq War was unjustified and illegal. It doesn't bother me. Bush is a moron.

Thank you for making my point. "Truthers" should not offer any theory at all, all they should be showing is that questions have not been answered, let the investigation provide the theory. Let the evidence tell the story.

Except the questions have been answered, in detail, by multiple studies and multiple groups. The fact of the matter is that people don't accept these answers, and want a new investigation because they believe it will change those answers.

That is why "truthers" must produce convincing evidence, because there is already evidence that shows they are wrong. They must provide superior evidence that shows how the existing theory is incorrect.