An Open Letter to FDNY Firefighter John Schroeder from a debunker

page: 6
13
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by totallackey
 


40 % of 9600 gallons equals 3840 gallons of jet fuel sloshing around the building

More than enough to create an explosive fireball in the elevator shafts




posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


A person I know was on the 86th floor of WTC 1 - she witnessed the horrific burn injuries suffered by one
of her fellow workers

She was burned by a fireball blowing out of one of the elevator shafts

In fact the account of what she saw is in the book "102 MINUTES: The Untold Story of the Fight to Survive in
the Twin Towers" by Jim Dwyer/Kevin Flynn

Maybe should read in instead of depending on "damm fool conspiracy sites" ........



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

...and as I said many times before, I am relying on the eyewitness testimony of people who were physically there.
No you are not... If you did you would have to admit that there was something else going on because eyewitnesses contradict what you say.. I'll show it to you again (It's okay, I don't mind because I know you have trouble remembering things)

CAPTAIN KARIN DESHORE
SOMEWHERE AROUND THE MIDDLE OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER THERE WAS THIS ORANGE AND RED FLASH COMING OUT INITIALLY IT WAS JUST ONE FLASH THEN THIS FLASH JUST KEPT POPPING ALL THE WAY AROUND THE BUILDING AND THAT BUILDING HAD STARTED TO EXPLODE THE POPPING SOUND AND WITH EACH POPPING SOUND IT WAS INITIALLY AN ORANGE AND THEN RED FLASH CAME OUT OF THE BUILDING AND THEN IT WOULD JUST GO ALL AROUND THE BUILDING ON BOTH SIDES AS FAR AS COULD SEE THESE POPPING SOUNDS AND THE EXPLOSIONS WERE GETTING BIGGER GOING BOTH UP AND DOWN AND THEN ALL AROUND THE BUILDING.
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GREGORY
Lieutenant Evangelista, who ultimately called me up a couple of days later just to find out how I was. We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down. Q. Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was? A. No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too.
FIREFIGHTER RICHARD BANACISKI
We were there I don't know, maybe 10, 15 minutes and then I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions. Everybody just said run and we all turned around and we ran into the parking garage because that's basically where we were. Running forward would be running towards it. Not thinking that this building is coming down. We just thought there was going to be a big explosion, stuff was going to come down.
PARAMEDIC DANIEL RIVERA
THEN THAT'S WHEN KEPT ON WALKING CLOSE TO THE SOUTH TOWER AND THAT'S WHEN THAT BUILDING COLLAPSED. HOW DID YOU KNOW THAT IT WAS COMING DOWN? THAT NOISE IT WAS NOISE .WHAT DID YOU HEAR WHAT DID YOU SEE? IT WAS A FRIGGING NOISE AT FIRST THOUGHT IT WAS DO YOU EVER SEE PROFESSIONAL DEMOLITION WHERE THEY SET THE CHARGES ON CERTAIN FLOORS AND THEN YOU HEAR POP POP POP POP POP THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT BECAUSE THOUGHT IT WAS THAT WHEN HEARD THAT FRIGGING NOISE THAT'S WHEN SAW THE BUILDING COMING DOWN.
FIREFIGHTER JOSEPH MEOLA
As we are looking up at the building, what I saw was, it looked like the building was blowing out on all four sides. We actually heard the pops. Didn't realize it was the falling -- you know, you heard the pops of the building. You thought it was just blowing out.
Should I keep going or will you acknowledge these eyewitnesses?

She needed a pass key and clearance simply to visit her friend located on a different floor
Oh yea she totally debunked all of these eyewitnesses. She's the very tall woman from NJ who worked in the south tower and knew John O'Neill right? Did she need a pass key and clearance to go where O'neil worked? or did she need it to go anywhere in the building?



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by exponent
You don't base it on anything more than similar look and similar sound

So, we find a new species of animal. It looks similar to a dog. It's bark is similar to a dog. We are going to call it a dog! If it looks similar to a duck and sounds similar to a duck, it's a freakin duck!

The buildings collapsed like controlled demolition, exhibited the signs of controlled demolition, and sounded like controlled demolition. It's a controlled demolition.

Oh wow BoneZ, this is literally a textbook definition of how not to reason when trying to understand a phenomena. Maybe you've heard of this group of animals called Marsupials. Perhaps you could bother to read this page to understand how looking similar is no indication whatsoever of a similar basis: en.wikipedia.org...


Yes. Hundreds of hours of modelling and experimenting to explain away the blatantly obvious. And they deliberately didn't test for explosive or incendiary residue. That's pure negligence and incompetence.
...
I asked in another post whether your previous statement was made out of denial or dishonesty. This statement above is absolute, deliberate, calculated dishonesty.

First and foremost, the explosions in that video sound like what distant thunder sounds like. Very low-level, far-away booms. Those explosions sound nothing like wind.

I half expect you to get banned for this but I'll reply in hope. Consider this video of a cat. Note the devastatingly powerful explosive sounds right at the start:


Furthermore, as this cat looks very much like it's part of the Carnivora Order and it looks like a Carnivore, then it must be a Brown Bear.

Of course that's nonsense, but you try to use the exact same inductive reasoning above. You create a false similarity, insist that this is a diagnostic criteria, and then decide you have learned enough and now know the truth. You're deceiving yourself here BoneZ.


I posted testimony from a firefighter who also stated there were that almost exact number of pre-collapse explosions. And you're going to sit there and claim that the firefighter mistook loud explosions for wind? Really?

Oh no, I feel no need to argue with someone who thinks that a firefighter saying a number that's nearly the same number as the number of gusts of wind you hear on another video proves demolition. Personally I'd keep that sort of statement to myself.


That is some amazing wind. Except that wind can't possibly know when to blow as each building collapses, nor blow only for the duration of those collapses.

You're right, it blows at random and you use confirmation bias to assume that it is explosives.

Tell me, how exactly were explosives set off that were clearly audiable on camera microphones a few miles away, but which weren't picked up by seismographs or people at the scene? Could it be a coincidence that they are recording next to a gigantic flat plane well known for gusts of wind?


Nice try, but the disinformation campaign that's been going on isn't going to work in this case.

The only campaign going on here is that you are constantly reinforcing your own beliefs by posting them and then ridiculing people who disagree with you. If this is not the case, please sync up two other videos of the WTC with your video and show how they all contain low frequency rumbles at the same time. That would be pretty convincing.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
No you are not... If you did you would have to admit that there was something else going on because eyewitnesses contradict what you say.. I'll show it to you again (It's okay, I don't mind because I know you have trouble remembering things)

Max, you're doing exactly what BoneZ is doing here. You're trying to find anything you think supports your case and linking it without actually going over it to check.

These videos and quotes have been posted a thousand times and probably the most damning is the fact that the very first person you link is talking about the collapse. A collapse we have video and many many accounts of, but you try to spin it as if they are describing bombs exploding.

Come on man, you're posting people saying there were flashes at the bottom of the building as being some sort of evidence? You might have noticed but the buildings collapsed from the top and people literally survived in the stairwells at the lowest levels.

This is why 'debunkers' say that 911 truthers need to come up with a coherent narrative, because this doesn't make sense at all. If we believed the implications of what you have posted, the conspiracists in order to conduct a secret demolition apparently set charges off before impact, during impact, during the next hour, and at the point of collapse.

In fact if we believe the sum total of accounts posted and dishonest papers like 118 witnesses etc, then there isn't a time during the tower fires that bombs weren't constantly going off.

It's nonsense, it's based on cherry picking, and considering there were people at the actual fire level expressing concern about the integrity of the building and literally phone calls cut short by the collapse, you should be able to present a much stronger case. As it is the case is 'well these flashes could have been explosions, therefore controlled demolition'.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
 
No you are not... If you did you would have to admit that there was something else going on because eyewitnesses contradict what you say.. I'll show it to you again (It's okay, I don't mind because I know you have trouble remembering things)


You are a genuine piece of work, Maxella. Thanks to your own smug attempt at trying to foster abject paranoia you just supplied the missing piece of the puzzle; When eyewitnesses accounts reported "orange and red flashes coming out all around the building" they were VERBALLY DESCRIBING THE INITIAL COLLAPSE OF THE BUILDING. This isn't some little known secondary event they talking about, they're talking about the flames being pushed out at the exact moment of time and at the exact location where the building started collapsing at the ninety-somethingth floor, and every video of the collapse already shows what they saw and heard in detail. Your own post shows this is what they were referencing-

"PARAMEDIC DANIEL RIVERA
THEN THAT'S WHEN KEPT ON WALKING CLOSE TO THE SOUTH TOWER AND THAT'S WHEN THAT BUILDING COLLAPSED. HOW DID YOU KNOW THAT IT WAS COMING DOWN? THAT NOISE IT WAS NOISE .WHAT DID YOU HEAR WHAT DID YOU SEE? IT WAS A FRIGGING NOISE AT FIRST THOUGHT IT WAS DO YOU EVER SEE PROFESSIONAL DEMOLITION WHERE THEY SET THE CHARGES ON CERTAIN FLOORS AND THEN YOU HEAR POP POP POP POP POP THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT BECAUSE THOUGHT IT WAS THAT WHEN HEARD THAT FRIGGING NOISE THAT'S WHEN SAW THE BUILDING COMING DOWN."


So in short, you're taking eyewitness accounts out of context to make a well documented event appear as if a little known secondary event occurred to make it more spooky-scary sounding than it really is, and falsely claiming it contradicts eyewitness accounts of people who worked in the building when it actually doesn't. How you can seriously deny you're just blindly repeating conspiracy propaganda without critical analysis is beyond me.


Oh yea she totally debunked all of these eyewitnesses. She's the very tall woman from NJ who worked in the south tower and knew John O'Neill right? Did she need a pass key and clearance to go where O'neil worked?


Let's recap this conversation, now....an eyewitness who worked in the towers states that you "secret controlled demolitions" conspiracy mongors are horribly uninformed and ignorant as to how NYPA security procedures functioned, and NOW you've been caught red handed taking eyewitness accounts out of context to create false evidence for your claims. Your credibility is suffering badly from several different directions so at this point does it really matter whether she needed a pass key to see John O'Neill or not?



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


reply to post by exponent
 


You guys are something else I tell ya..
I wish I could see your faces when type these things.


VERBALLY DESCRIBING THE INITIAL COLLAPSE OF THE BUILDING

No Dave they are describing flashes immediately prior to the collapse.



Come on man, you're posting people saying there were flashes at the bottom of the building as being some sort of evidence? You might have noticed but the buildings collapsed from the top and people literally survived in the stairwells at the lowest levels.


What these eyewitnesses are describing is exactly what happens when a building is being deliberately imploded.

I honestly don't believe that you actually believe what you are saying.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
What these eyewitnesses are describing is exactly what happens when a building is being deliberately imploded.

I honestly don't believe that you actually believe what you are saying.

Perhaps my post count will convince you I am in earnest. The post you're quoting does indeed sound like what happens when a building is being imploded, but is that proof on its own? For a start we have video footage of the actual collapses and of the exact moment from many angles. We even have audio recordings from inside and outside the towers.

You can't just look at a few accounts or extracts in isolation, this is always liable to give you a distorted perspective on events. It's how the '118 eyewitnesses' paper works, by snipping out the quotes most suitable to a particular point of view.

It's important to see things in their proper context and although it's often difficult it requires endless reading and fact checking and cross referencing. This is exactly the opposite of what you're doing here, and I don't even think that you are doing it intentionally. It's the result of an unconscious bias which is caused by the constant repetition of cherry picked evidence and plausible memes.

I don't want this to sound like I am lecturing you from some high horse. I have been victim to exactly the same unconscious bias on a number of occasions. I'm not trying to act as if you're a moron here, I'm trying to speak to you as an equal adult. I think it's pretty unlikely you'll agree with me, but consider this. It's been over a decade since 9/11 occurred. NISTs official report came out around 5 years ago. In all that time, it's not been possible to get a single coherent hypothesis together that has widespread support.

Even now, with AE911Truth being one of the most reputable truth groups that has existed, you can go to their homepage and read their materials and you won't be convinced fully by them. They make illogical claims based on little more than speculation, and have evolved into little more than a marketing company.

If the truth is so plain as you evidently believe it, why is it not commonly accepted fact? Why isn't there a convincing document that lays out unarguable truths and undeniable facts, that could be sent to every elected official in every country? Why is it that among even a small population nobody seems to be able to agree? It's because each group has their own selection of cherry picked evidence that best matches their personal theory and so it is of little relevance what evidence is presented for any other argument.

Of course, I could be wrong. I could be playing into the hands of TPTB right now and wasting my free time in order to further their agenda. I'll tell you something though. If I am wrong, and it turns out that 911 was an inside job, I'll bet my life savings that it will be discovered through either journalistic investigation or published scientific research.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


Wow you must be a lawyer.. I'll take this as your closing argument, and i will leave it at that.. Just keep in mind that
It took 40 years for the truth about what happened in the Gulf of Tonkin to come out. And it took 60 years for U.S. government to apologize for intentionally infecting hundreds of people in Guatemala with gonorrhea and syphilis without their knowledge or permission.

Both incidents are very hard to believe but it did happen... A lie was used to go to war which killed 58.000 Americans only.

And medical doctors deliberately infected people with a deadly disease.
edit on 25-9-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Double post
Sorry
edit on 25-9-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 


Governments have done horrendous things in their past, but in 40 years when we're all browsing the internet through our eyeballs I expect the same old arguments will be being rehashed.

It's been 40 years since the moon landings, and there are still believers sure that NASA will soon be revealed for a fraud and the evidence will come out!



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 





It's been 40 years since the moon landings, and there are still believers sure that NASA will soon be revealed for a fraud and the evidence will come out!


There are also people that think they are channeling extra terrestrials... Both might be true but who really cares? I know I don't.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
I half expect you to get banned for this but I'll reply in hope.

I'm not going to get banned for attacking a statement, i.e. words on my screen. And if I do, then so be it.



Originally posted by exponent
Consider this video of a cat. Note the devastatingly powerful explosive sounds right at the start

Those are not "devastatingly powerful explosive sounds". Those are very noticeable wind sounds, up close, right on the microphone. You can also hear the wind in the background. I just checked the weather in NYC on 9/11, the winds were light, so you can't really use that excuse.

The sounds in "9/11 Eyewitness" sound like far away booms, just like far away thunder sounds like far away booms.



Originally posted by exponent
You're right, it blows at random and you use confirmation bias to assume that it is explosives.

Wind blowing at the same exact time as all three building collapses and for the duration of all three collapses is the opposite of random.

What's the opposite of random?

* deliberate
* planned
* precise



Originally posted by exponent
Tell me, how exactly were explosives set off that were clearly audiable on camera microphones a few miles away, but which weren't picked up by seismographs or people at the scene?

I posted two papers by two PhD's on the seismograph readings. If you choose to ignore those, then that's your bad.

Numerous witnesses, including many in the First Responder Oral Histories, testified to low-level rumbles (and explosions) coming from the WTC. So again, corroborated.



Originally posted by exponent
Could it be a coincidence that they are recording next to a gigantic flat plane well known for gusts of wind?

Actually, wind gets compressed when going between buildings and thus blows harder than being out in the open. How come we don't hear wind in any other WTC video? Because the winds were light and didn't register on microphones.

As far as the microphones on the scene, there was alot of city noise, sirens, screaming people, etc., drowning out microphones. Across the Hudson, there were no city noises, sirens, etc.


But, I see what's going on here and am not going to be a part of it. And as such, this conversation ends here.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 





does it really matter whether she needed a pass key to see John O'Neill or not?


I didn't even notice you squeeze this little steamer Dave...

John O'Neill was one of the top security guys over there so if you wanted to get into his office you would need a pass most likely.. Now ask your tall female friend from NJ if she needed a pass to go from floor to floor or from one elevator to another?

Talk about taking things out of context...



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
 

No Dave they are describing flashes immediately prior to the collapse.


...and I took you at your word until you thoughlessly posted that eyewitness account that specifically said "red and orange flashes all around the building before it came down" which just happens to be precisely the same thing that was captured on every video of the collapse. That pretty much trumps whatever it is you're attempting to reinvent the eyewitness testimony to mean.

Nice try, but at the end of the day, both buildings began to collapse at the exact point of impact at the planes, so whatever it was that caused the structural failure it had to have happened at that specific location. The laws of physics necessarily have to apply to your conspiracy world just as they apply to everything else.



What these eyewitnesses are describing is exactly what happens when a building is being deliberately imploded.


Stop it already, Maxella. The video record taken by a LOT of individual sources shows there was only one event involving "red and orange flashes all around the building", and as per YOUR OWN EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS that was when the building began collapsing. If you attempt to refute this you will be lying.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by maxella1
 

I didn't even notice you squeeze this little steamer Dave...

John O'Neill was one of the top security guys over there so if you wanted to get into his office you would need a pass most likely.. Now ask your tall female friend from NJ if she needed a pass to go from floor to floor or from one elevator to another?


I don't need to ask her- I already know it was from floor to floor. Many floors had several tenants so they couldn't segregate visitation by elevator.

Here's an example of a visitor pass I found in 30 seconds of Google searching, posted on this guy's "Holy smoke that could have been me!" blog. It specifically identifies the exact building (1 WTC) , floor (45), the tenant he was authorized to visit (Security Traders Association), as well as when he was authorized to be there (9/10/01). Everyone in the building needed a pass like this-




...and in case you wanted to know, here's what a full time employee pass card looked like. I'm sure you recognize who this is. He needed a pass to get around the building too:




You know, she was right; you conspiracy mongers really are completely uninformed and ignorant as to how things were handled at the WTC. You're the self styled expert on everything and yet I'm the one who needed to do the 30 second Google search to answer your question.


Are you seriously telling me that people needed to show a security pass to go from floor to floor? Hahahaha

I personally been in those buildings dozens of times and all I had to do was sign my name, where I was going and the time at the security desk to receive a visitors pass
and then I was free to go to any floor I wanted. There were no check points in those buildings on every floor...

Now if you want to enter Security Traders Association, Inc office on the 45th floor and browse around in there you would need their visitors pass..

Security Traders Association, Inc on the 45th floor


It's funny that you call me a conspiracy monger while trying to convince me that in the WTC there were security check points and people had to show a pass to get from floor to floor...

Is there anything else you wish me to clarify for you Dave?

And if you want to use your tall female friend from NJ who personally knew John O'Neill as a source of the security procedures then PLEASE DO ask her if she needed a security pass to go where O'Neill worked or to go from floor to floor.


ETA:

Well I guess we'll never know now, Bye bye Dave...

edit on 26-9-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-9-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-9-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 




Stop it already, Maxella. The video record taken by a LOT of individual sources shows there was only one event involving "red and orange flashes all around the building", and as per YOUR OWN EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS that was when the building began collapsing. If you attempt to refute this you will be lying.


I know that you unfortunately are unable to respond to this but I must correct you again...


The eyewitness accounts state that the flashes came first and continued while the building was collapsing. Also the flashes were at a much lower level than where the damage was.

I wish you could respond and explain what flames were being pushed out of the floors nowhere near the fire or collapse?



they're talking about the flames being pushed out at the exact moment of time and at the exact location where the building started collapsing at the ninety-somethingth floor

edit on 26-9-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-9-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 


I 've been in WTC and other buildings in the area

Many of the tenants at WTC were financial business

Security for them was tight

To gain access must

1) Check in with security desk and show id (drivers license, etc)

2) Guards will often the call the office visiting and confirm your apoointment with clients

3) Depending on business and its policies often will have to have employee escort you on the premises

idea that bunch of people simply show up and start tramping theought the building planting explosives
is ridicious

Only way to transport heavy/bulky items is via freight elevator - which in NYC is a union job where there is
operator to run the elevator

This is reality



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 





Only way to transport heavy/bulky items is via freight elevator - which in NYC is a union job where there is operator to run the elevator This is reality


Here's more reality for you...





CLICK - DRIVE TO THE TOP

Or paste this www.elevator-world.com/magazine/archive01/0103-002.html-ssi

into the Wayback Machine

At a time when new construction is dominating the market, ACE Elevator undertook what was perhaps, one of the largest, most sophisticated elevator modernization programs in the industry's history. This "towering" achievement took place at New York City's prestigious World Trade Center (WTC), with the completion of the first six members of the elite "Shuttle Fleet."

Installations of two separate trough runs (one high voltage and one communication) from the elevator motor room to the motor generator room seven floors away, proved a challenge. A run of approximately 80 vertical feet, employed over 300 running feet of 2-1/2" x 8" and 2"x 2" trough raceway. This run traveled through plaster ceilings, concrete floors and around structural steel. The remote location necessitated the installation of a new 800 amp service disconnect switch with a remote shunt trip, installed in each motor generator room.

As with any high-rise steel building, high winds can raise havoc with high-rise elevators. During windy days when the sway of the building is greater than 1 mG, the speed of all the shuttle elevators are automatically reduced to 1,000 feet per minute, with a degraded speed curve. Also due to the building design, two express elevators share a common hoistway enclosure, therefore special software was designed to insure that the two shuttle cars sharing the same hoistway enclosure would never start to run in the same direction at the same time. An adjustable software delay allows the cars to run in the same direction after a minimum gap of 20 floors.


Unknown amount of people had access to all the areas they would need for all the time they would need it.

I don't recall reading that ACE Elevators employees who had access to the towers were ever identified and investigated. Maybe you have a link?
edit on 26-9-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
13
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join