Any Informed Defenders of the 9E OCT on USMB?

[eots]

liarability is a coward..liar ..pussy ..scumbag ..pussy .. scumbag.....therefore.. 9/11 is an inside job

 

[Liability]

liarability is a coward..liar ..pussy ..scumbag ..pussy .. scumbag.....therefore.. 9/11 is an inside job

Why is it so funny every time somebody makes id-eots cry?

 

[Fizz]

liarability is a coward..liar ..pussy ..scumbag ..pussy .. scumbag.....therefore.. 9/11 is an inside job

actually, that makes just as much sense as most of the other stupid twoofer theories.

 

[Gamolon]

You avoided the first. Simple. Question. Good grief.

No.

YOU avoided the first topic. That being the Twin Towers which were part of the so-called 9/11 conspiracy. Why did you change the subject based on the fact that you haven't studied them?

The topic of the thread is 9E.....which.....in case you didn't know.....contains one or two events along with the twin towers. I asked a simple question about the Towers and you ignored it. If you can't handle defending the OCT just say so now and bow out gracefully.

What eyewitness testimony about the collapse of the towers was "hidden". Please link a couple.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Oct=owot

 

[CurveLight]

No.

YOU avoided the first topic. That being the Twin Towers which were part of the so-called 9/11 conspiracy. Why did you change the subject based on the fact that you haven't studied them?

The topic of the thread is 9E.....which.....in case you didn't know.....contains one or two events along with the twin towers. I asked a simple question about the Towers and you ignored it. If you can't handle defending the OCT just say so now and bow out gracefully.

What eyewitness testimony about the collapse of the towers was "hidden". Please link a couple.

I can do better than link a couple of them. Is 503 of them enough?

Oral Histories From Sept. 11 Compiled by the New York Fire Department - The New York Times

Some examples:

"[T]here was just an explosion [in the south tower]. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions."
Firefighter Richard Banaciski

"I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know like
when they demolish a building?"
Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory


"t was [like a] professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'."
Paramedic Daniel Rivera

"I hear an explosion and I look up. It is as if the building
is being imploded, from the top floor down, one after another, boom, boom, boom."
FDNY Captain Dennis Tardio


I'm not saying all of them suggest demolition, and if I don't point that out someone would try to use that strawman. I'm also not saying these prove anything in and of themselves as they are but a piece to a much larger puzzle. The obvious question is this: If all of the W's about that day are known, and if everyone knows what happened then what possible justification exists to have kept them hidden for four years? Hell, the 9E CR was released before these were. At last check, there were still some being withheld.

Obviously explosions would be expected with huge fucking towers coming down, but the salient point of some of these testimonies is multiple explosions being witnessed 70 stories below the plane impact levels.

 

[CurveLight]

liarability is a total douche with nothing relevant to say

He's pure bred post turtle.

bent tight and id-eots, both active cowards. Perfect together. Perfectly hideous.

Being a liar and a complete pussy is no way to go through life, scumbag.

All you pussy Troofers are scumbags.

It's been proven you are the coward as you actively ignore any real attempt at debating but the revealing aspect of your mental illness is claiming Op Northwoods is a loopey conspiracy theory. Even when we have access to the original documents that show our top military leaders advocated bombing our own military, painting a US jet to look like a MIG to participate in that attack, blowing up our ships in our own Navy, faking terrorist attacks in Florida, sinking boats with innocent refugees, and painting CIA aircraft to look like a civilian aircraft then claim it was shot down by Cuba, even with all of that you ignore it. That is nothing less than rock solid proof you are incapable of honesty in questioning our government.

 

[Gamolon]

The topic of the thread is 9E.....which.....in case you didn't know.....contains one or two events along with the twin towers. I asked a simple question about the Towers and you ignored it. If you can't handle defending the OCT just say so now and bow out gracefully.

What eyewitness testimony about the collapse of the towers was "hidden". Please link a couple.

I can do better than link a couple of them. Is 503 of them enough?

Oral Histories From Sept. 11 Compiled by the New York Fire Department - The New York Times

Thanks.

Some examples:

"[T]here was just an explosion [in the south tower]. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions."
Firefighter Richard Banaciski

Let me ask you something. What is contained in that quote above that it should have been included as testimony to something? What is it proving? He heard an explosion. It "SEEMED" like on television". Comparison. Let me ask you this. Are explosives the only thing that can create a sound that someone would describe as an explosion? I've already provided you with links of a couple of "sounded like explosion" descriptions and there were no explosives involved.

So again. What is that statement actually proving in your mind?

"I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know like
when they demolish a building?"
Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory

Again. Comparison. Nothing definitive. "LIKE when they demolish a building". Did he say for sure it was explosives demolishing a building?

"t was [like a] professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'."
Paramedic Daniel Rivera

Another "It was LIKE a professional demolition. Comparison.

"I hear an explosion and I look up. It is as if the building
is being imploded, from the top floor down, one after another, boom, boom, boom."
FDNY Captain Dennis Tardio

"It's as IF..."

I'm not saying all of them suggest demolition, and if I don't point that out someone would try to use that strawman. I'm also not saying these prove anything in and of themselves as they are but a piece to a much larger puzzle. The obvious question is this: If all of the W's about that day are known, and if everyone knows what happened then what possible justification exists to have kept them hidden for four years? Hell, the 9E CR was released before these were. At last check, there were still some being withheld.

Please provide me proof that they were "hidden". Do you have someone admitting that they were hiding these testimonies on purpose? If not, then quite using the word "hidden" as it's only your opinion. I can just as easily say they were left out because they weren't relevant as they were DESCRIPTIONS and were not actual proof. Is that so hard to comprehend?

Obviously explosions would be expected with huge fucking towers coming down, but the salient point of some of these testimonies is multiple explosions being witnessed 70 stories below the plane impact levels.

Now you say "witnessed" followed by a location in the towers which indicates someone visually saw an "explosion". Can you please provide a photo or link to someone who witnessed these explosions?

I understand that you have said the above quotes don't necessarily prove anything. They are still just descriptions of noises that people heard and used something that everyone could relate to as a description. So you're saying that if we put the "explosion" description quotes together with what people saw, that proves something strange went on? Something different than what NIST said happened?

 

[candycorn]

Please provide me proof that they were "hidden". Do you have someone admitting that they were hiding these testimonies on purpose? If not, then quite using the word "hidden" as it's only your opinion. I can just as easily say they were left out because they weren't relevant as they were DESCRIPTIONS and were not actual proof. Is that so hard to comprehend?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Now you say "witnessed" followed by a location in the towers which indicates someone visually saw an "explosion". Can you please provide a photo or link to someone who witnessed these explosions?

I understand that you have said the above quotes don't necessarily prove anything. They are still just descriptions of noises that people heard and used something that everyone could relate to as a description. So you're saying that if we put the "explosion" description quotes together with what people saw, that proves something strange went on? Something different than what NIST said happened?

Arent things that are "hidden" usually not posted on the Internet?

 

[CurveLight]

What eyewitness testimony about the collapse of the towers was "hidden". Please link a couple.

I can do better than link a couple of them. Is 503 of them enough?

Oral Histories From Sept. 11 Compiled by the New York Fire Department - The New York Times

Thanks.



Let me ask you something. What is contained in that quote above that it should have been included as testimony to something? What is it proving? He heard an explosion. It "SEEMED" like on television". Comparison. Let me ask you this. Are explosives the only thing that can create a sound that someone would describe as an explosion? I've already provided you with links of a couple of "sounded like explosion" descriptions and there were no explosives involved.

So again. What is that statement actually proving in your mind?



Again. Comparison. Nothing definitive. "LIKE when they demolish a building". Did he say for sure it was explosives demolishing a building?



Another "It was LIKE a professional demolition. Comparison.



"It's as IF..."

I'm not saying all of them suggest demolition, and if I don't point that out someone would try to use that strawman. I'm also not saying these prove anything in and of themselves as they are but a piece to a much larger puzzle. The obvious question is this: If all of the W's about that day are known, and if everyone knows what happened then what possible justification exists to have kept them hidden for four years? Hell, the 9E CR was released before these were. At last check, there were still some being withheld.

Please provide me proof that they were "hidden". Do you have someone admitting that they were hiding these testimonies on purpose? If not, then quite using the word "hidden" as it's only your opinion. I can just as easily say they were left out because they weren't relevant as they were DESCRIPTIONS and were not actual proof. Is that so hard to comprehend?

Obviously explosions would be expected with huge fucking towers coming down, but the salient point of some of these testimonies is multiple explosions being witnessed 70 stories below the plane impact levels.

Now you say "witnessed" followed by a location in the towers which indicates someone visually saw an "explosion". Can you please provide a photo or link to someone who witnessed these explosions?

I understand that you have said the above quotes don't necessarily prove anything. They are still just descriptions of noises that people heard and used something that everyone could relate to as a description. So you're saying that if we put the "explosion" description quotes together with what people saw, that proves something strange went on? Something different than what NIST said happened?

The proof they were hidden is in the first sentence of the link:

"A rich vein of city records from Sept. 11, including more than 12,000 pages of oral histories rendered in the voices of 503 firefighters, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians, were made public on Aug. 12."


If something is "made public" that means it was previously not public.

Your dissecting of the testimonies is odd. I already stated:

"I'm also not saying these prove anything in and of themselves as they are but a piece to a much larger puzzle."

You briefly acknowledge that then immediately ask:

"So you're saying that if we put the "explosion" description quotes together with what people saw, that proves something strange went on?"

My answer to that is:

"I'm also not saying these prove anything in and of themselves as they are but a piece to a much larger puzzle."

An additional reason to pointing them out is many OCTAs claimed the lack of eyewitness testimonies about demo explosions is proof explosives were not used. I saw that on here when I first joined so I posted some of these testimonies and you know what the response was? They don't matter. They mattered when people didn't know they existed but after proving they do exist they suddenly became "irrelevant."

As for eyewitness explosions below the plane impact levels....most of those confirm it, out of common sense. If someone was on floor 60 and heard the explosions then what chance did they have to climb down 60 stories before the towers came down? You ask for a photo or link of people who witnessed explosions. I already did. What other link do you want besides these first responders?


Some more info on how these testimonies were hidden:


"The New York Times sought the records under the freedom of information law in February 2002, but the Bloomberg administration refused to make them public and the newspaper sued the city. Earlier this year, the Court of Appeals, New York's highest court, ordered the city to release most, but not all, of the records."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/12/nyregion/12records.html

It took three and a half years of legal dueling to get these publicly released and even then not all of them. The question remains: what was the purpose for keeping them hidden? As you and others have pointed out, 9E was no secret. What happened, by whom, when, how, and why was no secret. You can't cite "National Security." What was the reason?

 

[CurveLight]

Please provide me proof that they were "hidden". Do you have someone admitting that they were hiding these testimonies on purpose? If not, then quite using the word "hidden" as it's only your opinion. I can just as easily say they were left out because they weren't relevant as they were DESCRIPTIONS and were not actual proof. Is that so hard to comprehend?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Now you say "witnessed" followed by a location in the towers which indicates someone visually saw an "explosion". Can you please provide a photo or link to someone who witnessed these explosions?

I understand that you have said the above quotes don't necessarily prove anything. They are still just descriptions of noises that people heard and used something that everyone could relate to as a description. So you're saying that if we put the "explosion" description quotes together with what people saw, that proves something strange went on? Something different than what NIST said happened?

Arent things that are "hidden" usually not posted on the Internet?

.

You should really stick to personal insults because when you try to criticize posts you embarrass yourself. Horribly. I said they were kept hidden, as in past tense and completely proven. They were released a year after the 9E CR was released. Yep. That sure was a "complete" investigation. Lol.

 

[Gamolon]

An additional reason to pointing them out is many OCTAs claimed the lack of eyewitness testimonies about demo explosions is proof explosives were not used. I saw that on here when I first joined so I posted some of these testimonies and you know what the response was?

So you posted these testimonies as proof of EXPLOSIVES?

 

[Gamolon]

As for eyewitness explosions below the plane impact levels....most of those confirm it, out of common sense. If someone was on floor 60 and heard the explosions then what chance did they have to climb down 60 stories before the towers came down? You ask for a photo or link of people who witnessed explosions. I already did. What other link do you want besides these first responders?

What exactly is your point? They heard explosions or sounds that they described as sounding "like" explosions.

What exactly does this mean in your eyes?

 

[Gamolon]

Curve,

Can you please explain your contradiction with these two quotes:

I'm not saying all of them suggest demolition, and if I don't point that out someone would try to use that strawman. I'm also not saying these prove anything in and of themselves as they are but a piece to a much larger puzzle.

and...

An additional reason to pointing them out is many OCTAs claimed the lack of eyewitness testimonies about demo explosions is proof explosives were not used. I saw that on here when I first joined so I posted some of these testimonies

First you say you aren't using the quotes as proof of anything and then you post something that says you posted the same above quotes as proof of demo explosions to show people who claimed that there was a lack of eyewitness testimonies about demo explosions.

So which is it?

Are they proof of demo explosions in your eyes or not?

 

[Fizz]

The proof they were hidden is in the first sentence of the link:

"A rich vein of city records from Sept. 11, including more than 12,000 pages of oral histories rendered in the voices of 503 firefighters, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians, were made public on Aug. 12."


If something is "made public" that means it was previously not public.

another absurd leap in logic made by a twoofer.

everything that was "made public" must previously be HIDDEN.

it cant just be that the 12,000 pages of oral histories were gathered together and released together.


noooooooooooooo.....

it has to be HIDDEN in order for it to be made public!!

 

[CurveLight]

The proof they were hidden is in the first sentence of the link:

"A rich vein of city records from Sept. 11, including more than 12,000 pages of oral histories rendered in the voices of 503 firefighters, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians, were made public on Aug. 12."


If something is "made public" that means it was previously not public.

another absurd leap in logic made by a twoofer.

everything that was "made public" must previously be HIDDEN.

it cant just be that the 12,000 pages of oral histories were gathered together and released together.


noooooooooooooo.....

it has to be HIDDEN in order for it to be made public!!

They were hidden because the NYT had to file a FOIA suit against New York and fought for over 3 years to get them released:

"The New York Times sought the records under the freedom of information law in February 2002, but the Bloomberg administration refused to make them public and the newspaper sued the city. Earlier this year, the Court of Appeals, New York's highest court, ordered the city to release most, but not all, of the records."

 

[Gamolon]

The proof they were hidden is in the first sentence of the link:

"A rich vein of city records from Sept. 11, including more than 12,000 pages of oral histories rendered in the voices of 503 firefighters, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians, were made public on Aug. 12."


If something is "made public" that means it was previously not public.

another absurd leap in logic made by a twoofer.

everything that was "made public" must previously be HIDDEN.

it cant just be that the 12,000 pages of oral histories were gathered together and released together.


noooooooooooooo.....

it has to be HIDDEN in order for it to be made public!!

They were hidden because the NYT had to file a FOIA suit against New York and fought for over 3 years to get them released:

"The New York Times sought the records under the freedom of information law in February 2002, but the Bloomberg administration refused to make them public and the newspaper sued the city. Earlier this year, the Court of Appeals, New York's highest court, ordered the city to release most, but not all, of the records."

So why do you think they were "hidden"?

 

[Fizz]

The proof they were hidden is in the first sentence of the link:

"A rich vein of city records from Sept. 11, including more than 12,000 pages of oral histories rendered in the voices of 503 firefighters, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians, were made public on Aug. 12."


If something is "made public" that means it was previously not public.

another absurd leap in logic made by a twoofer.

everything that was "made public" must previously be HIDDEN.

it cant just be that the 12,000 pages of oral histories were gathered together and released together.


noooooooooooooo.....

it has to be HIDDEN in order for it to be made public!!

They were hidden because the NYT had to file a FOIA suit against New York and fought for over 3 years to get them released:

"The New York Times sought the records under the freedom of information law in February 2002, but the Bloomberg administration refused to make them public and the newspaper sued the city. Earlier this year, the Court of Appeals, New York's highest court, ordered the city to release most, but not all, of the records."

not very well hidden if the newspapers know about them, eh? fucking moron.

so the NYT filed a FOIA suit which apparently covered all the city employees. so what is the proof that these individual testimonies were "hidden" and not available on an individual basis? your claim is that NYC responded to the FOIA request and released all the information together as 12,000 pages of ORAL testimony is proof it was hidden. where is the proof that none of this was previously available and it was all hidden?

what kept these people from talking to the NYT on an individual basis?

 

[CurveLight]

Curve,

Can you please explain your contradiction with these two quotes:

I'm not saying all of them suggest demolition, and if I don't point that out someone would try to use that strawman. I'm also not saying these prove anything in and of themselves as they are but a piece to a much larger puzzle.

and...

An additional reason to pointing them out is many OCTAs claimed the lack of eyewitness testimonies about demo explosions is proof explosives were not used. I saw that on here when I first joined so I posted some of these testimonies

First you say you aren't using the quotes as proof of anything and then you post something that says you posted the same above quotes as proof of demo explosions to show people who claimed that there was a lack of eyewitness testimonies about demo explosions.

So which is it?

Are they proof of demo explosions in your eyes or not?

I will not respond when you purposefully edit my posts to omit what I have said. I will let this one go but if you continue there is no reason to have a discussion. I straight up said OCTAs claimed there were no witnesses to explosions and they cited that claim as proof none were used. I showed them that claim is false and there are many eyewitness testimonies of explosives. As I've repeatedly said, I did not post them to prove an inside job. I posted them to show the OCTAs are incorrect to say there are no eyewitness testimonies of explosions. That's it. However, it revealed hypocrisy as well. When they didn't know the testimonies existed they claimed the absence of them was evidence no explosives were used. Now that we know the testimonies exist they say they don't matter. That is clear hypocrisy.

 

[CurveLight]

another absurd leap in logic made by a twoofer.

everything that was "made public" must previously be HIDDEN.

it cant just be that the 12,000 pages of oral histories were gathered together and released together.


noooooooooooooo.....

it has to be HIDDEN in order for it to be made public!!

They were hidden because the NYT had to file a FOIA suit against New York and fought for over 3 years to get them released:

"The New York Times sought the records under the freedom of information law in February 2002, but the Bloomberg administration refused to make them public and the newspaper sued the city. Earlier this year, the Court of Appeals, New York's highest court, ordered the city to release most, but not all, of the records."

not very well hidden if the newspapers know about them, eh? fucking moron.

so the NYT filed a FOIA suit which apparently covered all the city employees. so what is the proof that these individual testimonies were "hidden" and not available on an individual basis? your claim is that NYC responded to the FOIA request and released all the information together as 12,000 pages of ORAL testimony is proof it was hidden. where is the proof that none of this was previously available and it was all hidden?

what kept these people from talking to the NYT on an individual basis?

They knew testimonies existed but New York would not release them. The NYT then filed an FOIA to have them released and fought for years to get them. If you had actually read the link you would have seen the NYT did get some through unofficial channels but NY would not make them public.

They were even denied to victims' families:

"A group of families of people who died in the attack intervened in the suit brought by The Times, also urging release of the records. One of those family members, Rosaleen Tallon, noted that Zacarias Moussaoui, an admitted member of Al Qaeda who is accused of plotting with the Sept. 11 hijackers, long ago obtained the same documents in preparation for his criminal trial that were being denied to her and other families by the Bloomberg administration."

I used to get upset when people like you work so hard to avoid addressing the facts. Now I just feel sorry for you.