eots
no fly list
liarability is a coward..liar ..pussy ..scumbag ..pussy .. scumbag.....therefore.. 9/11 is an inside job
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
liarability is a coward..liar ..pussy ..scumbag ..pussy .. scumbag.....therefore.. 9/11 is an inside job
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
.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?
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?
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?
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.
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
another absurd leap in logic made by a twoofer.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.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.
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!!
another absurd leap in logic made by a twoofer.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.
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."
another absurd leap in logic made by a twoofer.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.
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."
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?
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?