@JD2010CWS You are a low, crude and disrespectful person. You offer nothing to the discussion but vile personal attacks, the kind of knuckle-dragging stuff that seeks to vandalize any intelligent life on this planet.
Get lost and go troll somewhere else. Take your darkness to another place than this.
So it's your unwavering,absolute knowledge of ALL things that let's you close this case. No Facts will you ever see. No conversation will you here. Sir I bow down to your stupid assertions. Bet you would like to live in Europe say late 1930s. Those are your kind of thinkers.
1:34 Case closed...he thinks there are explosives in surrounding buildings as well. He says, and I quote "anyone of these fucking buildings could blow up"
@JusticeForSome and I quote "anyone of these fucking buildings could blow up" yeah and he was right, 7 or 8 buildings all blew up after that, I just HATE the truth.
@JusticeForSome Misquoting the firefighters does not make your arguments valid. In fact, they prove you to be idiotic and illogical. Your paranoia and and lack of solid evidence have made your assertions of no value whatsoever.
BTW calling people TRUTHERS is name calling - just like a five year old would do. Seems to conflict with your personal policy for leaving comments on your page.
@JusticeForSome No, it isn't. The term 'truther' was invented by the people who follow the movement's beliefs. Ergo, a 'truther' is simply a person who believes one or more of the main myths of the 9/11 Truth movement.
It is an appropriate descriptive term, coined by truthers themselves!!! And still you point fingers!! Unbelievable!
@JusticeForSome According to Wiki 'The term is also being used by the adherents of the movement. Adherents also call themselves "9/11 Truthers", "9/11 skeptics" or "truth activists", while generally rejecting the term "conspiracy theorists'
Go argue with truthers themselves, why dontcha? :)
Funny...in your other video about WT7 you slam people because your reporter said something and when the media speaks its ALWAYS the truth. However when these firefighters speak...somehow you know that they are just confused.
It seems you pick and choose when eye witness testimony is valid. Reporter vs. firefighter...I choose the firefighters.
@JusticeForSome You make no sense. Every piece of eyewitness testimony needs to be understood in context, and corroborated with other eyewitnesses and also empirical evidence.
Firefighters said that WTC 7 was fully involved, that it was probably going to collapse. So then you must agree with this also, by your own standard ('I choose the firefighters'). If you refuse, you are violating your own principle and are therefore a complete hypocrite.
@JusticeForSome Besides, we KNOW there were many different kinds of explosions, at various times. Nobody is trying to deny that. However, there are many potential sources for explosions, and without eliminating all of them, you cannot know what caused them.
To make the leap of faith and say 'it was high explosive cutter charges' is not logical nor intelligent. Since there's ZERO physical evidence to support controlled demolition charges, it is very unlikely they were the cause.
@AlienEntity1 "To make the leap of faith and say 'it was high explosive cutter charges' is not logical nor intelligent. Since there's ZERO physical evidence to support controlled demolition charges, it is very unlikely they were the cause". I NEVER SAID THIS - ever. You know that people will see you make stuff up.
If the allegation isn't that the explosions were caused by high explosive cutter charges, then WHAT IS THE ALLEGATION?????
Please, enlighten us. The entire obsession by 9/11 Truthers is that the explosions were not caused by anything but demolition charges. What part of that do you not get? RU even on the same planet dude?
@AlienEntity1 To quote the video "was that a secondary explosion? Yes it was" (at 17 seconds in) - And now because I have the audacity to ask questions I'm PARANOID...People like you make fun of others...because you have no ability to offer your point of view like grown ups do. Paranoid... I've been called worse by a better class of people. But keep up the name calling because you can't break my argument.
@JusticeForSome I don't need to break your argument, since you have no argument! Yes, I make fun of idiotic ideas, sue me. It's either laugh or cry at stupidity, I choose to laugh at it. so there.
Now, did you actually have a point? No, I didn't think so...
@AlienEntity1 argument is the firefighters testimony...did you actually listen to this? No you just mock anyone brave enough to endure mass stupidity. Explain how this video proves your point over mine. You need to listen to the whole thing or part of it or talk to someone who has but you are to busy mouthing off to all those who believe the firefighters. So the firefighters are lying...that's what you are suggesting. One point for common sense.
@JusticeForSome So.... is your point that the firefighters agree that 'the building collapsed on us', when the tower fell onto it?
They're describing what, exactly? In your words, or do you have the ability to put these things in your own words, and use quotations to support your points? I really can't tell if you do or not.
Try using words to make your point. So far you've presented nothing.
@JusticeForSome Illogical! You have NO common sense in your foolish statements nor do you have any imperical evidence to support the assertions of the Truther movement.
@Sandberg1972 Now you're attempting to backpedal. Your claims are just not true - firemen and EMT's (I've provided the quotes for heaven's sake!!) had discussions with engineers from OEM possibly, but they obviously were convinced -on the day - that the buildings were in danger of collapsing.
This is not just speculation. They have said it in their own words. Now you have to pretend as though they didn't think what they actually thought.......Yikes!!
@AlienEntity1 Any proof that any fireman came to the conclusion or assumption that WTC1 was gonna collapse on his own? What buildings are u talking about? WTC1 and 7? Could u also explain why they did NOT think that WTC2 was gonna collapse (not in their wildest dreams I would guess)?
Could u also tell me if any fireman was EVER asked if he expected the collapse to be total and straight down at near freefall acc.? If not, what do u think they would've answered to this question?
@AlienEntity1 If u read correctly, u'll notice that I admit that some said they expected collapse (because some mysterious engineer said so). Not one fireman was specific though, declaring what kind of collapse they expected. I'm pretty confident that if one were 2 ask that question, not ONE fireman would've answered that they expected a straight down explosive collapse down 2 the ground in about 15 secs (WTC1) or a neat implosion resembling CD (WTC7). But hey, nobody bothered 2 ask them, right?
@AlienEntity1 And I read the quotes allright, I do not dispute they said what they said. I don't see any indication however that firemen should consider or expect a total straight down collapse of such tall steelframed buildings, no matter what the damage or fires are. Who knows, maybe they changed their mind after witnessing WTC2 exploding down to the ground, which they didn't imagine happening in their wildest dreams. The fact is they talk about explosions, which means CD cannot be ruled out.
@Sandberg1972 Explosions cannot and do not prove CD, either. That's the inherent weakness of Truther arguments. You at best have an unproven idea..... not really something to hang one's hat on.
You're imposing a lot onto firemen's thoughts - you have no idea what they expected, nor what they find reasonable. They experienced something you never will, nor will I, so who's to say how they should react.
@AlienEntity1 Explosions support the CD-hypothesis, while they do not support the official hypothesis. One can make a few twists and turns and say well they MAY have been caused by this or that, by nothing to outright refute them.
The official explanation is at best an unproven or rather a series of unproven assumptions, not backed up by solid evidence, that is available to the public and/or qualified members of the public.
And u're putting words in my mouth again, the wrong ones, that is.
Other than that, this "Unless a person can be found who will admit to planting explosives" is some way to cover ur ass. What would u do if u were behind this? Leave those persons alive? And even if they weren't killed, and one of them came forward, would YOU believe him? So this is way off the mark this. Most firemen know what's going on, and they have been pressured to keep their mouth shut. Just like other families have been told the same, in exchange for some financial compensation.
@Sandberg1972 'Most firemen know what's going on, and they have been pressured to keep their mouth shut. Just like other families have been told the same, in exchange for some financial compensation.'
@Sandberg1972 You presume to know absolutely what goes on in someone else's mind. If you really believe you know, then that is delusional. IMO.
Take that at face value.
Do some firemen want to avoid dredging up the memories of a terrible day? Certainly, isn't that understandable?
Only your paranoia prevents you from understanding this. Many firefighters do talk about the day. I have conversed with them and read their forum comments many times. I don't need to speculate about their minds.
@AlienEntity1 Any firefighter perhaps, that was expecting WTC2 to come down, let alone the way it did? Guess not, since they had sent some guys up there (who happened to think that they could knock the fires down with (just) two lines). Apparently this doesn't mean anything to you. Also the sensitivity of this subject and its consequences is also something u're not taking all that well into account. But considering it's you that comes as no surprise to me. Ever heard of fireman Eric Lawyer, btw?
@Sandberg1972 In fact FDNY tried to warn personal who were in WTC 1, but radios were not working properly and many firefighters died as a result. And other first responders.
Does that mean that others did not foresee the collapse? Of course not. This is a red herring.
@Sandberg1972 FDNY Assistant Chief Joseph Callan, WTC 1'Callan: "For me to make the decision to take our firefighters out of the building with civilians still in it, that was very tough for me, but I did that because I did not think the building was safe any longer, and that was just prior to 9:30.'
@Sandberg1972 EMS Division Chief John Peruggia 'it was brought to my attention,.. that the structural damage that was suffered to the towers was quite significant and they were very confident ..they felt that the north tower was in danger of a near imminent collapse.
You see Chief Ganci and Chief Ganci only. Provide him with the information that the building integrity is severely compromised and they believe the building is in danger of imminent collapse." So, he left off in that direction."'
@Sandberg1972 EMT Zarillo 'I said the buildings are going to collapse; we need to evac everybody out. With a very confused look he said who told you that? I said I was just with John at OEM. OEM says the buildings are going to collapse; we need to get out. He escorted me over to Chief Ganci. He said, hey, Pete, we got a message that the buildings are going to collapse.'
@AlienEntity1 So it appears that the OEM was the source of that message that the buildings (both of them apparently, how odd, since it had never ever happened before) were going to collapse. Of course there are firemen on record that have stated that WTC7 was going to collapse.
I've always wondered why all these firemen have never been asked if they had ever thought about the possibility that one of the towers would collapse, prior to WTC2 coming down. Why would they?
@Sandberg1972 An engineer, apparently, not a fireman. But firemen and others are losers either way - if they thought the collapse would happen, it's foreknowledge and conspiracy; if they didn't think so, it proves that it shouldn't have happened and it was due to conspiracy.
Either way, Truthers of various types will attribute everything to conspiracy. That's the way they perceive everything.
@AlienEntity1 That firemen and others are losers, are your words, not mine. Don't u think it would be nice or rather, highly important, to find out how this particular engineer was, since he made a judgement that WTC1 was gonna collapse? Kinda interesting to find out why he thought that would happen or was likely to happen, don't ya think? It's obvious that any reasonably thinking fireman would never have expected such buildings to totally collapse, let alone so violently and straight down.
Sure enough the loud bangs & sounds of big explosions could be caused by something else, explosing generators, gaslines, refrigerators, desks hell, why not exploding filecabinets or paper? The sounds of explosions, along with all the video-evidence, and the impossibility of the official explanation (well in fact, NIST hasn't even explained the collapses, because they can't), point to these sounds being caused by some kind of explosives (could be a number to choose from).
CNN is now reporting that there was a third explosion at the WTC probably an explosion from the ground that caused WTC1 to collapse . A third explosion it is unclear what caused it whether it was a bomb or whether the first plane that crashed into the tower had somehow been booby trapped with a bomb that was timed to explode later after the crashed had occurred. But CNN is reporting that there was a third explosion that caused WTC1 to collapse within itself". Marcia Kramer, CBS2.
AlienEntity does not speak for all the firefighters in the country , that's for sure. A buddy of mine just went to an open house at a new firefighting house. My buddy brought up 9/11 and asked about what the district chief thought about the buildings coming down. The chief said, fire couldn't have done it alone and something else had to be involved. So, it leads me to believe if all firefighters or chiefs were polled on this, many would not support the official crime story.
@charlesfloyb Was the district chief there at GZ on 9/11? Then what relevance does his opinion have apart from an attempted argument from authority on your part?
@AlienEntity1 " Was the district chief there at GZ on 9/11? Then what relevance does his opinion have apart from an attempted argument from authority on your part?" No the district fire chief was not at GZ on 9/11. However, I found it interesting that experts in the field are evaluating the available evidence and coming to a different conclusion than you and your followers which are staunch supporters of the official crime story.
@Hochdorff "Guess what, something different was involved indeed: two freaking gigantic Jets" but don't forget , that NIST invented a new way that buildings collapse. Never before has thermal expansion been the cause for a complete building collapse. NIST didn't show any examples via real tests and their computer model inputs and source code to the software they say is the evidence for their case, isn't available to anyone in public. Can you say INSIDE JOB?
How many NY firefighters think there were explosives in the buildings? Not these videos which sounds like hyperbole, actually specifically afterwards. How many at ANY time said ANYTHING that backs up a single claim by truthers about Building 7? You wont be able to name anyone or any claim. Not the "small fires" not the "minor damage" not that it was a surprise that it collapsed - none of it. The firefighters dont support truthers, how many times does it need to be said?
Silly people assume that nothing else in a building ON FIRE could explode. What about electrical transformers? I wonder if any of these building had those...oh wait, many.
I will come to NYC to interview the NYPD,FDNY and PAPD....It maybe time to write a book in support of the needs of the first responders and for the survivors of this terror attack..
Look truthers, large sections of a building collapsing could sound just like an explosion. Huge slabs of concrete slapping together, multiple floors worth of air being displaced, steel supports snapping, all of it could sound like an explosion, especially if you're in the midst of the collapse and scared out of your mind.
@zenoist2 What constitutes an explosion though? In other words, is an 'explosion' sound only caused by high explosives or are there other possibilities?
@zenoist2 4 of them could be set off by each other, like four cars close together, one explosion of the fuel tank then setting off the next and so forth...
An explosion can refer to many things, sometimes people can even use the word "bomb" and not even refer to an explosive. People use the word explosion to refer to things that arent bombs all the time. But on 911 there was a lot of confusion, so people could also have thought they could have heard a bomb but didn't. Truthers don't care about finding out which is which, or care that no one sustained injuries consistent with explosives.
@AlienEntity1 Just what unholy mess are you talking about? Planes the crashed 60 plus stories above them? They never even saw that area. How can you prove an explosion was not a bomb? I think we can trust men to know what a bomb is vs. an explosion. Dont confuse yourself. Just look at them. The lobby was destroyed, watch the videos here on youtube.
"How can you prove an explosion was not a bomb? "-
-
Can you prove it was a bomb? Why did no one sustain any injuries associated with explosives? Plenty of things can go boom and people refer to loud sounds as explosions, blasts or even sounding like bombs all the time. But for truthers, if someone on 911 said explosion, they had to MEAN bomb AND could never be mistaken.
@charlesfloyb Can you point out to me where they say they heard explosions? From where they were I cannot imagine that they would have thought anything else a building that large falling on top of you would be pretty traumatic. With all the smoke, fire and tons of steel and concrete falling every where It most likley looked and sounded like all hell was breaking loose. It dose not prove that there were bombs in the building however.
@charlesfloyb The fire fighters in this video, were in the lobby of the Marriott Hotel, what they are describing as explosions is debris from the south tower hitting the hotel, when the tower collapsed.
@josarhus "what they are describing as explosions is debris from the south tower hitting the hotel," Really? What makes you say that? Any evidence at all? Seems like you are stretching what is being said to fit your own conclusion which I'm sure is the official story.
@charlesfloyb The fire fighter to the left is Tyrone Johnson and the one in the middle is James Grillo. Both are from Ladder Company 24, who arrived several minutes after the second plane hit. They went to the Lobby of the Marriott Hotel. Tyrone Johnson and other members of Ladder 24 were interviewed and the official ladder 24 operation report is public, perhaps you should read both the interviews and the report, when you do it becomes very clear that it is the collapse of the south tower.
@josarhus " it becomes very clear that it is the collapse of the south tower" Ok, maybe you spotted something in one of the interviews you say you listened to that gives you some evidence for your conclusion. Or maybe this report that you say is public had something convincing in it. Ok, I'll have to search for these , hope I get what you have, then hope I find this seemingly elusive evidence that you say is there. I'll look for it, in hopes that you're right.
@charlesfloyb First of all this video is a part of a twice as long video. Secondly there are other videos filmed of these three firemen and I have told you who two of the fire fighters are, so your search shouldn't be that long before you understand what they are talking about.
@josarhus They tell you in the video what they are talking about. No need to decipher what is said in this video. The lobby blew up, destroyed. Three explosion after the planes hit. All secondary devices. Get over it.
@Omegatide Yes the lobby was definitely destroyed long after the planes hit, did I say anything to the contrary?!?
What’s interesting is that none of them ever came inside either of the towers, so the lobby they are talking about is the Marriott lobby, so get over it and stop making up funny fantasies!
@josarhus Hey retard they never even speak about a building falling down, do they?
But the lobby did explode. Now if they werent in the twin towers just why did the marriott lobby get destroyed with explosions? Gas went into the marriott lobby and exploded it? Watch the video, explosions not falling buildings. The lobby blew up, do you listen? It would have been easy to say the tower fell and we had to get out. Nobody even hinted towards this notion. BOMBS were talked about though and a lobby.
@Omegatide Well if you did some research, you would know that they were in the Marriott lobby and what they are talking about is the collapse of the south tower.
Their testimony is in writing among the 503 first responders interviewed, now do some reading and research, and stop acting like a stupid little child!
@josarhus That's funny, when you watch the video nobody ever mentions a collapsing building. Just explosions and bombs. YOu would like everyone to search online what they can find right here, live in action. Explosions. 1,2,3 of them. No collapsing except the lobby. Many witnesses say the lobby blew out before any building had fallen. Get out of here with your "go research" bullshit.
Ive seen it all, even watched 9-11 live on t.v. Nobody ever had to tell me it was a controlled demo. I saw it.
@Omegatide The Marriott lobby didn't suffer any damage until the towers collapsed.
The fire fighers in this video were in the Marriott lobby. You are confusing the events in the tower lobbys.
If you have done research, you would know the names of the fire fighters in this video, so why don't you contact them and ask, if they were talking about bombs?
@charlesfloyb Well, that is not true, in fact everyone is agreement that explosions were heard, we know that many vehicles exploded, and there were explosions caused by the fires. Where we disagree is that you beleive explosions = explosives.
@JD2010CWS You are a low, crude and disrespectful person. You offer nothing to the discussion but vile personal attacks, the kind of knuckle-dragging stuff that seeks to vandalize any intelligent life on this planet.
Get lost and go troll somewhere else. Take your darkness to another place than this.
AlienEntity1 1 month ago
So it's your unwavering,absolute knowledge of ALL things that let's you close this case. No Facts will you ever see. No conversation will you here. Sir I bow down to your stupid assertions. Bet you would like to live in Europe say late 1930s. Those are your kind of thinkers.
JusticeForSome 3 months ago
@JusticeForSome Apply that statement to yourself, and you would be correct. Your lies are as illogical as you are.
EvilStar109 1 week ago
1:34 Case closed...he thinks there are explosives in surrounding buildings as well. He says, and I quote "anyone of these fucking buildings could blow up"
Don't you HATE the truth?
JusticeForSome 3 months ago
@JusticeForSome So a fireman speculates about something, which makes it true, right? Have I got that correctly?
Then, once again, when FDNY Chief Nigro states that they felt WTC 7 was going to collapse from fire, YOU must also accept that is true.
correct? Or RU a complete hypocrite? Which is it? Answer the question, since you brought up the subject. Or continue to evade and deflect.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago 3
@JusticeForSome No, I embrace the truth. You evade the fact that FDNY predicted the building would collapse because of fire.
Keep running from that fact, dude. It's what you do.
Keep running.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago 2
@JusticeForSome and I quote "anyone of these fucking buildings could blow up" yeah and he was right, 7 or 8 buildings all blew up after that, I just HATE the truth.
Oh wait no they didn't.
Pirate44444 1 week ago
@JusticeForSome Misquoting the firefighters does not make your arguments valid. In fact, they prove you to be idiotic and illogical. Your paranoia and and lack of solid evidence have made your assertions of no value whatsoever.
EvilStar109 1 week ago
BTW calling people TRUTHERS is name calling - just like a five year old would do. Seems to conflict with your personal policy for leaving comments on your page.
JusticeForSome 3 months ago in playlist More videos from AlienEntity1
@JusticeForSome No, it isn't. The term 'truther' was invented by the people who follow the movement's beliefs. Ergo, a 'truther' is simply a person who believes one or more of the main myths of the 9/11 Truth movement.
It is an appropriate descriptive term, coined by truthers themselves!!! And still you point fingers!! Unbelievable!
It's always someone else' fault huh?
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@JusticeForSome According to Wiki 'The term is also being used by the adherents of the movement. Adherents also call themselves "9/11 Truthers", "9/11 skeptics" or "truth activists", while generally rejecting the term "conspiracy theorists'
Go argue with truthers themselves, why dontcha? :)
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
Funny...in your other video about WT7 you slam people because your reporter said something and when the media speaks its ALWAYS the truth. However when these firefighters speak...somehow you know that they are just confused.
It seems you pick and choose when eye witness testimony is valid. Reporter vs. firefighter...I choose the firefighters.
JusticeForSome 3 months ago in playlist More videos from AlienEntity1
@JusticeForSome You make no sense. Every piece of eyewitness testimony needs to be understood in context, and corroborated with other eyewitnesses and also empirical evidence.
Firefighters said that WTC 7 was fully involved, that it was probably going to collapse. So then you must agree with this also, by your own standard ('I choose the firefighters'). If you refuse, you are violating your own principle and are therefore a complete hypocrite.
Your call. :)
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@JusticeForSome Besides, we KNOW there were many different kinds of explosions, at various times. Nobody is trying to deny that. However, there are many potential sources for explosions, and without eliminating all of them, you cannot know what caused them.
To make the leap of faith and say 'it was high explosive cutter charges' is not logical nor intelligent. Since there's ZERO physical evidence to support controlled demolition charges, it is very unlikely they were the cause.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AlienEntity1 "To make the leap of faith and say 'it was high explosive cutter charges' is not logical nor intelligent. Since there's ZERO physical evidence to support controlled demolition charges, it is very unlikely they were the cause". I NEVER SAID THIS - ever. You know that people will see you make stuff up.
JusticeForSome 3 months ago
@JusticeForSome Paranoid much? LOL
If the allegation isn't that the explosions were caused by high explosive cutter charges, then WHAT IS THE ALLEGATION?????
Please, enlighten us. The entire obsession by 9/11 Truthers is that the explosions were not caused by anything but demolition charges. What part of that do you not get? RU even on the same planet dude?
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AlienEntity1 To quote the video "was that a secondary explosion? Yes it was" (at 17 seconds in) - And now because I have the audacity to ask questions I'm PARANOID...People like you make fun of others...because you have no ability to offer your point of view like grown ups do. Paranoid... I've been called worse by a better class of people. But keep up the name calling because you can't break my argument.
JusticeForSome 3 months ago
@JusticeForSome I don't need to break your argument, since you have no argument! Yes, I make fun of idiotic ideas, sue me. It's either laugh or cry at stupidity, I choose to laugh at it. so there.
Now, did you actually have a point? No, I didn't think so...
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@AlienEntity1 argument is the firefighters testimony...did you actually listen to this? No you just mock anyone brave enough to endure mass stupidity. Explain how this video proves your point over mine. You need to listen to the whole thing or part of it or talk to someone who has but you are to busy mouthing off to all those who believe the firefighters. So the firefighters are lying...that's what you are suggesting. One point for common sense.
JusticeForSome 3 months ago
@JusticeForSome So.... is your point that the firefighters agree that 'the building collapsed on us', when the tower fell onto it?
They're describing what, exactly? In your words, or do you have the ability to put these things in your own words, and use quotations to support your points? I really can't tell if you do or not.
Try using words to make your point. So far you've presented nothing.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago 2
@JusticeForSome Illogical! You have NO common sense in your foolish statements nor do you have any imperical evidence to support the assertions of the Truther movement.
EvilStar109 1 week ago
BTW - I would love to here you explain(logically) ALL of the explosions that they talk about...seriously.
JusticeForSome 3 months ago
@JusticeForSome Snap!
ScienceAndEvidence 1 month ago
Must be the wind
JusticeForSome 3 months ago
WHAT CAUSED THE EXPLOSIONS
xlla 10 months ago
@xlla Here's a start for you
watch?v=NzsnIvswZuo
Here's another, very eye-opening.
watch?v=dizurbqG50U
AlienEntity1 10 months ago
@Sandberg1972 Now you're attempting to backpedal. Your claims are just not true - firemen and EMT's (I've provided the quotes for heaven's sake!!) had discussions with engineers from OEM possibly, but they obviously were convinced -on the day - that the buildings were in danger of collapsing.
This is not just speculation. They have said it in their own words. Now you have to pretend as though they didn't think what they actually thought.......Yikes!!
AlienEntity1 1 year ago
@AlienEntity1 Any proof that any fireman came to the conclusion or assumption that WTC1 was gonna collapse on his own? What buildings are u talking about? WTC1 and 7? Could u also explain why they did NOT think that WTC2 was gonna collapse (not in their wildest dreams I would guess)?
Could u also tell me if any fireman was EVER asked if he expected the collapse to be total and straight down at near freefall acc.? If not, what do u think they would've answered to this question?
Sandberg1972 1 year ago
@Sandberg1972 Now you're traveling toward another strawman argument, moving goalposts to avoid admitting that they expected collapse.
Now you impose an artificial 'total and straight down' condition on their perceptions. That's your idea, not theirs.
Do not confuse the two.
AlienEntity1 1 year ago
@AlienEntity1 If u read correctly, u'll notice that I admit that some said they expected collapse (because some mysterious engineer said so). Not one fireman was specific though, declaring what kind of collapse they expected. I'm pretty confident that if one were 2 ask that question, not ONE fireman would've answered that they expected a straight down explosive collapse down 2 the ground in about 15 secs (WTC1) or a neat implosion resembling CD (WTC7). But hey, nobody bothered 2 ask them, right?
Sandberg1972 1 year ago
@AlienEntity1 And I read the quotes allright, I do not dispute they said what they said. I don't see any indication however that firemen should consider or expect a total straight down collapse of such tall steelframed buildings, no matter what the damage or fires are. Who knows, maybe they changed their mind after witnessing WTC2 exploding down to the ground, which they didn't imagine happening in their wildest dreams. The fact is they talk about explosions, which means CD cannot be ruled out.
Sandberg1972 1 year ago
@Sandberg1972 Explosions cannot and do not prove CD, either. That's the inherent weakness of Truther arguments. You at best have an unproven idea..... not really something to hang one's hat on.
You're imposing a lot onto firemen's thoughts - you have no idea what they expected, nor what they find reasonable. They experienced something you never will, nor will I, so who's to say how they should react.
AlienEntity1 1 year ago
@AlienEntity1 Explosions support the CD-hypothesis, while they do not support the official hypothesis. One can make a few twists and turns and say well they MAY have been caused by this or that, by nothing to outright refute them.
The official explanation is at best an unproven or rather a series of unproven assumptions, not backed up by solid evidence, that is available to the public and/or qualified members of the public.
And u're putting words in my mouth again, the wrong ones, that is.
Sandberg1972 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AlienEntity1 "Explosions cannot and do not prove CD, either" Dont you think they prove the official hypothesis even less?
zenoist2 10 months ago
Other than that, this "Unless a person can be found who will admit to planting explosives" is some way to cover ur ass. What would u do if u were behind this? Leave those persons alive? And even if they weren't killed, and one of them came forward, would YOU believe him? So this is way off the mark this. Most firemen know what's going on, and they have been pressured to keep their mouth shut. Just like other families have been told the same, in exchange for some financial compensation.
Sandberg1972 1 year ago
@Sandberg1972 'Most firemen know what's going on, and they have been pressured to keep their mouth shut. Just like other families have been told the same, in exchange for some financial compensation.'
That is delusional.
AlienEntity1 1 year ago
@AlienEntity1 Anything else that just those 3 words? Any reason to say this, argument perhaps?
There are firemen who do not want to hear anything about 911, it's just a no-go-area, go figure.
Sandberg1972 1 year ago
@Sandberg1972 You presume to know absolutely what goes on in someone else's mind. If you really believe you know, then that is delusional. IMO.
Take that at face value.
Do some firemen want to avoid dredging up the memories of a terrible day? Certainly, isn't that understandable?
Only your paranoia prevents you from understanding this. Many firefighters do talk about the day. I have conversed with them and read their forum comments many times. I don't need to speculate about their minds.
AlienEntity1 1 year ago
@AlienEntity1 Any firefighter perhaps, that was expecting WTC2 to come down, let alone the way it did? Guess not, since they had sent some guys up there (who happened to think that they could knock the fires down with (just) two lines). Apparently this doesn't mean anything to you. Also the sensitivity of this subject and its consequences is also something u're not taking all that well into account. But considering it's you that comes as no surprise to me. Ever heard of fireman Eric Lawyer, btw?
Sandberg1972 1 year ago
@Sandberg1972 In fact FDNY tried to warn personal who were in WTC 1, but radios were not working properly and many firefighters died as a result. And other first responders.
Does that mean that others did not foresee the collapse? Of course not. This is a red herring.
More coming..
AlienEntity1 1 year ago
@Sandberg1972 FDNY Assistant Chief Joseph Callan, WTC 1'Callan: "For me to make the decision to take our firefighters out of the building with civilians still in it, that was very tough for me, but I did that because I did not think the building was safe any longer, and that was just prior to 9:30.'
AlienEntity1 1 year ago
@Sandberg1972 EMS Division Chief John Peruggia 'it was brought to my attention,.. that the structural damage that was suffered to the towers was quite significant and they were very confident ..they felt that the north tower was in danger of a near imminent collapse.
You see Chief Ganci and Chief Ganci only. Provide him with the information that the building integrity is severely compromised and they believe the building is in danger of imminent collapse." So, he left off in that direction."'
AlienEntity1 1 year ago
@Sandberg1972 EMT Zarillo 'I said the buildings are going to collapse; we need to evac everybody out. With a very confused look he said who told you that? I said I was just with John at OEM. OEM says the buildings are going to collapse; we need to get out. He escorted me over to Chief Ganci. He said, hey, Pete, we got a message that the buildings are going to collapse.'
AlienEntity1 1 year ago
@AlienEntity1 So it appears that the OEM was the source of that message that the buildings (both of them apparently, how odd, since it had never ever happened before) were going to collapse. Of course there are firemen on record that have stated that WTC7 was going to collapse.
I've always wondered why all these firemen have never been asked if they had ever thought about the possibility that one of the towers would collapse, prior to WTC2 coming down. Why would they?
Sandberg1972 1 year ago
@Sandberg1972 An engineer, apparently, not a fireman. But firemen and others are losers either way - if they thought the collapse would happen, it's foreknowledge and conspiracy; if they didn't think so, it proves that it shouldn't have happened and it was due to conspiracy.
Either way, Truthers of various types will attribute everything to conspiracy. That's the way they perceive everything.
AlienEntity1 1 year ago
@AlienEntity1 That firemen and others are losers, are your words, not mine. Don't u think it would be nice or rather, highly important, to find out how this particular engineer was, since he made a judgement that WTC1 was gonna collapse? Kinda interesting to find out why he thought that would happen or was likely to happen, don't ya think? It's obvious that any reasonably thinking fireman would never have expected such buildings to totally collapse, let alone so violently and straight down.
Sandberg1972 1 year ago
@AlienEntity1 Quite logical, unlike everything the Truthers spew out.
EvilStar109 1 week ago
@EvilStar109 Thx, we try to kick at the darkness (til it bleeds daylight, as the Bruce Cockburn song goes)
AlienEntity1 1 week ago
Sure enough the loud bangs & sounds of big explosions could be caused by something else, explosing generators, gaslines, refrigerators, desks hell, why not exploding filecabinets or paper? The sounds of explosions, along with all the video-evidence, and the impossibility of the official explanation (well in fact, NIST hasn't even explained the collapses, because they can't), point to these sounds being caused by some kind of explosives (could be a number to choose from).
Sandberg1972 1 year ago
@Sandberg1972 A little dose of reality: watch?v=dizurbqG50U
This is all nanothermite too?
AlienEntity1 1 year ago
CNN is now reporting that there was a third explosion at the WTC probably an explosion from the ground that caused WTC1 to collapse . A third explosion it is unclear what caused it whether it was a bomb or whether the first plane that crashed into the tower had somehow been booby trapped with a bomb that was timed to explode later after the crashed had occurred. But CNN is reporting that there was a third explosion that caused WTC1 to collapse within itself". Marcia Kramer, CBS2.
charlesfloyb 1 year ago
AlienEntity does not speak for all the firefighters in the country , that's for sure. A buddy of mine just went to an open house at a new firefighting house. My buddy brought up 9/11 and asked about what the district chief thought about the buildings coming down. The chief said, fire couldn't have done it alone and something else had to be involved. So, it leads me to believe if all firefighters or chiefs were polled on this, many would not support the official crime story.
charlesfloyb 1 year ago
@charlesfloyb Was the district chief there at GZ on 9/11? Then what relevance does his opinion have apart from an attempted argument from authority on your part?
AlienEntity1 1 year ago
@AlienEntity1 " Was the district chief there at GZ on 9/11? Then what relevance does his opinion have apart from an attempted argument from authority on your part?" No the district fire chief was not at GZ on 9/11. However, I found it interesting that experts in the field are evaluating the available evidence and coming to a different conclusion than you and your followers which are staunch supporters of the official crime story.
charlesfloyb 1 year ago
@charlesfloyb Guess what, something different was involved indeed: two freaking gigantic Jets!
Hochdorff 1 year ago 6
This has been flagged as spam show
@Hochdorff "Guess what, something different was involved indeed: two freaking gigantic Jets" but don't forget , that NIST invented a new way that buildings collapse. Never before has thermal expansion been the cause for a complete building collapse. NIST didn't show any examples via real tests and their computer model inputs and source code to the software they say is the evidence for their case, isn't available to anyone in public. Can you say INSIDE JOB?
charlesfloyb 1 year ago
@Hochdorff 60 stories above them moron. If I had a fire in my house here in Washington I would not say DUH dummy, California has wildfires!! OMG!!
Right? Boom Boom BOom all after the planes. Boom!
Omegatide 1 year ago
@charlesfloyb
-
How many NY firefighters think there were explosives in the buildings? Not these videos which sounds like hyperbole, actually specifically afterwards. How many at ANY time said ANYTHING that backs up a single claim by truthers about Building 7? You wont be able to name anyone or any claim. Not the "small fires" not the "minor damage" not that it was a surprise that it collapsed - none of it. The firefighters dont support truthers, how many times does it need to be said?
TheSkepticalIdealist 1 year ago 2
Silly people assume that nothing else in a building ON FIRE could explode. What about electrical transformers? I wonder if any of these building had those...oh wait, many.
JPO1618 1 year ago
I will come to NYC to interview the NYPD,FDNY and PAPD....It maybe time to write a book in support of the needs of the first responders and for the survivors of this terror attack..
blueshadow1996 1 year ago
Look truthers, large sections of a building collapsing could sound just like an explosion. Huge slabs of concrete slapping together, multiple floors worth of air being displaced, steel supports snapping, all of it could sound like an explosion, especially if you're in the midst of the collapse and scared out of your mind.
Harabeck 1 year ago
He said the plane was black! Clearly there was a stealth fighter involved!
Harabeck 1 year ago
An explosion is unmistakable.
its not falling rubble
They say there were 4 explosions.
Notice the"3 explosions after that"
I believe them.
zenoist2 1 year ago 2
@zenoist2 What constitutes an explosion though? In other words, is an 'explosion' sound only caused by high explosives or are there other possibilities?
AlienEntity1 1 year ago
@AlienEntity1 usually explosives strangely enough but there can be other causes ie gas tanks etc to be fair.
When 4 of them go off I think they are planted explosives
Tons of eyewitnesses reported multiple explosions.
Ignoring eyewitness evidence all saying the same thing is wishful thinking.
An explosion has an unmistakeable sound.
zenoist2 1 year ago
@zenoist2 4 of them could be set off by each other, like four cars close together, one explosion of the fuel tank then setting off the next and so forth...
dangerouslytalented 1 year ago
@zenoist2 What would you think they would have felt if they were caught in the that situation?
dangerouslytalented 1 year ago
@zenoist2
-
In the windsor tower fire there are reports of muffled explosions coming from the basements, was that bombs too?
TheSkepticalIdealist 1 year ago 2
@zenoist2
-
An explosion can refer to many things, sometimes people can even use the word "bomb" and not even refer to an explosive. People use the word explosion to refer to things that arent bombs all the time. But on 911 there was a lot of confusion, so people could also have thought they could have heard a bomb but didn't. Truthers don't care about finding out which is which, or care that no one sustained injuries consistent with explosives.
TheSkepticalIdealist 1 year ago
How can you prove that an explosion was a bomb? Or a high explosive?
You can't. All you know is that they heard something loud, but they were in the middle of an unholy mess.
AlienEntity1 1 year ago 2
@AlienEntity1 Just what unholy mess are you talking about? Planes the crashed 60 plus stories above them? They never even saw that area. How can you prove an explosion was not a bomb? I think we can trust men to know what a bomb is vs. an explosion. Dont confuse yourself. Just look at them. The lobby was destroyed, watch the videos here on youtube.
Omegatide 1 year ago
@Omegatide
-
"How can you prove an explosion was not a bomb? "-
-
Can you prove it was a bomb? Why did no one sustain any injuries associated with explosives? Plenty of things can go boom and people refer to loud sounds as explosions, blasts or even sounding like bombs all the time. But for truthers, if someone on 911 said explosion, they had to MEAN bomb AND could never be mistaken.
TheSkepticalIdealist 1 year ago
It sounds like evidence of people hearing explosions, something that Sunder and so many people said didn't exist.
charlesfloyb 1 year ago
@charlesfloyb Can you point out to me where they say they heard explosions? From where they were I cannot imagine that they would have thought anything else a building that large falling on top of you would be pretty traumatic. With all the smoke, fire and tons of steel and concrete falling every where It most likley looked and sounded like all hell was breaking loose. It dose not prove that there were bombs in the building however.
wheelst 1 year ago
@charlesfloyb The fire fighters in this video, were in the lobby of the Marriott Hotel, what they are describing as explosions is debris from the south tower hitting the hotel, when the tower collapsed.
josarhus 1 year ago 2
@josarhus "what they are describing as explosions is debris from the south tower hitting the hotel," Really? What makes you say that? Any evidence at all? Seems like you are stretching what is being said to fit your own conclusion which I'm sure is the official story.
charlesfloyb 1 year ago
@charlesfloyb The fire fighter to the left is Tyrone Johnson and the one in the middle is James Grillo. Both are from Ladder Company 24, who arrived several minutes after the second plane hit. They went to the Lobby of the Marriott Hotel. Tyrone Johnson and other members of Ladder 24 were interviewed and the official ladder 24 operation report is public, perhaps you should read both the interviews and the report, when you do it becomes very clear that it is the collapse of the south tower.
josarhus 1 year ago 2
@josarhus " it becomes very clear that it is the collapse of the south tower" Ok, maybe you spotted something in one of the interviews you say you listened to that gives you some evidence for your conclusion. Or maybe this report that you say is public had something convincing in it. Ok, I'll have to search for these , hope I get what you have, then hope I find this seemingly elusive evidence that you say is there. I'll look for it, in hopes that you're right.
charlesfloyb 1 year ago
@charlesfloyb First of all this video is a part of a twice as long video. Secondly there are other videos filmed of these three firemen and I have told you who two of the fire fighters are, so your search shouldn't be that long before you understand what they are talking about.
josarhus 1 year ago 5
@josarhus They tell you in the video what they are talking about. No need to decipher what is said in this video. The lobby blew up, destroyed. Three explosion after the planes hit. All secondary devices. Get over it.
Omegatide 1 year ago
@Omegatide Yes the lobby was definitely destroyed long after the planes hit, did I say anything to the contrary?!?
What’s interesting is that none of them ever came inside either of the towers, so the lobby they are talking about is the Marriott lobby, so get over it and stop making up funny fantasies!
josarhus 1 year ago
@josarhus Hey retard they never even speak about a building falling down, do they?
But the lobby did explode. Now if they werent in the twin towers just why did the marriott lobby get destroyed with explosions? Gas went into the marriott lobby and exploded it? Watch the video, explosions not falling buildings. The lobby blew up, do you listen? It would have been easy to say the tower fell and we had to get out. Nobody even hinted towards this notion. BOMBS were talked about though and a lobby.
Omegatide 1 year ago
@Omegatide Well if you did some research, you would know that they were in the Marriott lobby and what they are talking about is the collapse of the south tower.
Their testimony is in writing among the 503 first responders interviewed, now do some reading and research, and stop acting like a stupid little child!
josarhus 1 year ago
@josarhus That's funny, when you watch the video nobody ever mentions a collapsing building. Just explosions and bombs. YOu would like everyone to search online what they can find right here, live in action. Explosions. 1,2,3 of them. No collapsing except the lobby. Many witnesses say the lobby blew out before any building had fallen. Get out of here with your "go research" bullshit.
Ive seen it all, even watched 9-11 live on t.v. Nobody ever had to tell me it was a controlled demo. I saw it.
Omegatide 1 year ago
@Omegatide The Marriott lobby didn't suffer any damage until the towers collapsed.
The fire fighers in this video were in the Marriott lobby. You are confusing the events in the tower lobbys.
If you have done research, you would know the names of the fire fighters in this video, so why don't you contact them and ask, if they were talking about bombs?
josarhus 1 year ago
@charlesfloyb Well, that is not true, in fact everyone is agreement that explosions were heard, we know that many vehicles exploded, and there were explosions caused by the fires. Where we disagree is that you beleive explosions = explosives.
TheFlyposter 1 year ago