Firefightersfor9-11truth.org

[ThNozzleman]

... and if it was indeed fire that caused WTC 7's collapse, then we are back to square one; that this collapse of a high rise structure due to fire was totally unprecedented in history.

So was putting men on the moon.
Oh, wait; you're probably one of those idiots who think the moon landing was filmed in a desert somewhere.

[BryanLoader]

So was putting men on the moon.
Oh, wait; you're probably one of those idiots who think the moon landing was filmed in a desert somewhere.

Of Course, just outside Roswell New Mexico. Secondary pictures from
Area 51. Have you also noiticed that they didn't actually show photos of Neil Armstrongs face inside the space suit. It would have been obvious that he was Kenyan/Indonesian. Probably carried a fake Hawaiian birth certificate too.

[sfd1992]

So was putting men on the moon.
Oh, wait; you're probably one of those idiots who think the moon landing was filmed in a desert somewhere.

Don't forget the "chemtrail" conspiracy..... where's my foil hat?

[koolaid1]

Honest to God. Idiot Boy? Then when am I not a credible witness? Because I can telly ou that there were no explosions?

So, you’re telling me that Barry Jennings who was blown down by an explosion inside the stairwell of Tower 7 PRIOR TO EITHER Tower 1 or Tower 2 collapsing is lying because you were

standing with several hundred other fire fighters outside Manhattan Community College when 7 fell.

and didn’t hear anything? So, in an investigation if you had several witnesses that were inside a building and saw multiple bright white flashes coming from within the stairwells, but you had witnesses outside the building who saw nothing you would not investigate the source of the flashes?

George, I understand very clearly, as does everybody here – you were there. I hear your statement that you didn’t hear explosions. But, I also hear the testimony of those that were inside that did hear explosions well BEFORE the collapse. What I’m not hearing from you though are any national standards that allow for the destruction of evidence, and refusal to test debris for accelerants.

Plus, the NFPA is clear – “19.4.8.2.6 Extremism – Extremist-motivated fire setting is committed to further a social, political, or religious cause.
….
(a) Terrorism. The targets set by terrorists may appear to be at random; however, target locations are generally selected with some degree of political or economic significance. Political targets generally include government offices, newspapers, universities, political party headquarters, and military or law enforcement installation………………..
The terrorist may include fire as but one of a variety of weapons, along with explosives, used in furthering his or her goal.”

I read that as we should consider the use of explosives by terrorists in addition to fire.

So you are asking for a new investigation. So what? The government has done their investigation. In it, you will find the answers to your questions. You just refuse to believe it. Why?

I refuse to believe because the Tower 7 investigation DID NOT FOLLOW NATIONAL STANDARDS, and included no physical evidence – so it is just a hypothesis!

And your quotes are out of context and really mean NOTHING, as the people describe hearing explosions. Noone denies that the sounds of a large building being hit by an airliner and being consumed by fire will have collapses that make noise. In addition, there are many other things that will make "explosion" noises in a building.

How is quoting a firefighter reporting explosions taken out of context? I could include the entire transcripts, but I don’t think you would read them. When you take witness reports – you don’t ask the witness what the cause is. You take all the statements, and investigate yourself. Plus, PD found a van full of explosives on 9/11/01 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CHq6JocvDM
– do you think that was just a coincidence too? Remember, too, Tower 7 WAS NOT struck by an airplane, and there were witness reports of explosions PRIOR TO any tower collapses. THAT NEEDS TO BE INVESTIGATED!!

See above, there were explosions and things that sounded like explosions. SO WHAT. Again, it proves nothing.

Alone, no, it doesn’t prove anything, but that’s what lab analysis and physical evidence is for. But, Tower 7 had neither – just hypotheses that nobody can agree on.

"destroying evidence" is an overly dramatic way of putting what happened. The site was cleared, there were mountains and mountains of debris and they were cleared.

hmmm – let’s see, clearing all debris, not saving ANY, having all the steel melted down, and ALL THIS prior to the investigation that was supposed to determine cause….do you have a better word than destroyed?

Asshat: When was the last time two skyscrapers with the unique construction features of the Towers were hit by two large jets fully loaded with fuel? Are you going to ignore physics, simply because this is the first time something like this happens? Where would we be if we ignored the hard facts and blamed every disaster on magical flying space monkeys? I'll wager that smarter people than you will definitely take into account the performance of the Towers after the attack the next time a building that large is designed. Of course, you keep on blaming it on flying space monkeys sneaking into the Towers with TNT.

Where would we be if we ignored the hard facts? We’d BE in the mess we’re in today. Again, no physical evidence was used to determine how Tower 7 came down, and NIST only investigated up until collapse initiation of Towers 1 or 2. They didn’t seem to think it was important to learn how the building below the impact zone (which was all COLD hard steel and concrete) crumbled straight down at near free-fall speed. So, therefore we don’t know how to make the buildings safer because it wasn’t investigated.

He talks about credible evidence, yet he ognores the fact that I was there and watched it fall. NO EXPLOSIONS!
Asshat: The above statement by my educated and experienced friend is all I need. It's time to move beyond the disbelief and accept the facts: Large buildings weakened by fire and impact damage can and will collapse. We've known this for over a hundred years. Where the hell have you been??

Again, several witnesses on the outside not hearing something doesn’t prove witnesses on the inside were mistaken.

THAT makes you highly suspicious??? THAT.

Wow, you need some perspective. How come that ONE "expert" outweighs the hundreds of others that state the opposite? Simply because it fits your agenda?

Have you listened to him speak? He was the head of the division and he describes how poorly the investigation was done. Yes, that’s alarming in the worst fire disaster in history. Plus, there are over 600 architects and engineers who have put their name to demanding a new investigation.

Speaking of ChiefKN, I wish I had read his response to you previous post before I looked into it's claims. Would have saved me some time. I should have known your reference and "quote" of James Quintiere was another half-truth.

The only fact that I could find where Quintere specifically disagrees with NIST is over the degree of insulation of the WTC trusses. Quintere thinks they were under insulated. The implication is if there is a conspiracy, it is to not hold the builders accountable for their insufficiency in that department.

"Although Dr. Quintiere was strongly critical of NIST’s conclusions and its investigatory process, he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives."

http://www.opednews.com/articles/gen...ef_of_nist.htm

You were dishonest, Erik. Why did you leave that part out?

Lt. Tony – the only fact that you could find? Have you listened to him speak yourself? He’s very clear – the investigation did not answer the question – Did we have a faulty design, or did the airplane cause the collapse? We DON’T KNOW. He also says we need to look at real alternatives to cause of collapse. Now, remember, he was the Chief of the Fire Division of NIST. He is very critical of the investigation, and I did include the part

"Although Dr. Quintiere was strongly critical of NIST’s conclusions and its investigatory process, he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives."

So how can you say I was being dishonest?

He says the key to the investigation is to set a timeline from witness accounts, video, information from alarm systems, and then by calculations. He said NIST did not do a timeline which is troubling. He is also critical of the destruction of evidence, and called for it to stop. He used the term “throwing away” evidence though which is a little more p.c. then what I’m saying. So yes, Chief KN and Lt. Tony – that does concern me, and it should you too. The fact the many leaders in fire investigation, and Bill Manning from Fire Engineering called for the destruction of evidence to stop, and yet it did not. Whether they believe explosives were involved or not is beside the point – the investigation has major faults, and therefore should not be blindly believed.

Listen to him- Session M21 on June 4 (69 minutes) and Spotlight Session T54 on June 5 (102 minutes). http://www.fleetwoodonsite.com/index...&osCsid=04863b

You seem to complain a lot about name calling, even saying on your website that Pop. Mechanics resorted to "calling and smear tactics" without substantiating it. Now, that's smear tactics.

“We as a society accept the basic premise that a group of Islamist terrorists hijacked four airplanes and turned them into weapons against us. Sadly, the noble search for truth is now being hijacked by a growing army of conspiracy theorists.
…
[T]hose who peddle fantasies that this country encouraged, permitted or actually carried out the attacks are libeling the truth -- and disgracing the memories of the thousands who died that day. “
So, yes Lt. Tony, when you start your article with these statements and basically shut down anybody (especially the family members who lost loved ones) who has legitimate questions with this type of language – yes, I’d say it’s smear tactics. And, as far as the name calling, yes it is a hot button because it shuts down honest debate and communication. Remember, family members of the victims started the 9/11 Truth movement.

Where am I screaming conspiracy? We are demanding a new investigation...

Screaming is cranking up your font to a size 40, big bold CAPS (like so many do here), and stating that in your declarations or mission statement. Talking about the events – news stories not being covered (which I can prove to you) Whistleblowers not being allowed to speak (which I can prove to you) high ranking military officers claiming we have “domestic enemies” (which I can prove to you) is not screaming “conspiracy theory”, it’s stating facts.

How many? Yet you don't attribute any of the information? You ramble after that, without any specifics. "I have heard many of their horrific experiences." Doesn't tell me anything to support your position.

what? Support what position? Me going into details about private conversations I have had with firefighters who lived through hell that day –what exactly does that prove? You want names and stories – you can email me privately. My issue is with the unacceptable investigation, destruction of evidence, refusal to test for anything that may have accelerated the buildings destruction, and Congress’ refusal to pass the Health and Compensation Act. My issue is not with ANY of the firefighters or rescue workers who lived through hell, and responded courageously.

I don't care about how many classes. The answer is "no," right? So there you are. With Vincent Dunn. An influential national figure in the fire service. And you don't ask him a dang thing about this "very serious issue" and a solemn oath you took to defend the Constitution Have I got that right?

If you read my letter, I only really critically looked at 9/11 last year, I had the same beliefs as most of you prior to March of 2008. I took Dunn’s classes over 5 years ago.

I need clarification here because this phrase is used by some as a euphemism. "Banks" in general, or specific banks? And who are the cronies, specifically?

If you really want clarification, and aren’t just being sarcastic, I would recommend reading “The Creature from Jekyll Island” and watching Aaron Russo’s (produced Trading Places, the Rose, and ran for Nevada governor) documentary called “Freedom to Fascism” (don’t worry it’s not about 911)– http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...80303867390173 and then be sure to watch his interview about the movie where he talks about his friendship with Rockefeller.

yet these last two (who I doubt are FFs) seem to be talking conspiracy at the highest level.

Wouldn’t that be a conspiracy Lt. Tony if they weren’t firefighters but we’re pretending to be-and you clearly don't believe in conspiracies. And, how do we know you are really a firefighter?

ChiefKN-

WTC 7

There were also diesel generators with pressurized lines going up to the generators... adding to the fire.

READ the report, it's all in there.

This is a major FALSE belief of those who support the official story. I challenge you to read the report. From NIST again – “Did fuel oil systems in WTC 7 contribute to its collapse?
No. The building had three separate emergency power systems, all of which ran on diesel fuel. The worst-case scenarios associated with fires being fed by ruptured fuel lines—or from fuel stored in day tanks on the lower floors—could not have been sustained long enough, could not have generated sufficient heat to weaken critical interior columns, and/or would have produced large amounts of visible smoke from the lower floors, which were not observed.
As background information, the three systems contained two 12,000 gallon fuel tanks, and two 6,000 gallon tanks beneath the building’s loading docks, and a single 6,000 gallon tank on the 1st floor. In addition one system used a 275 gallon tank on the 5th floor, a 275 gallon tank on the 8th floor, and a 50 gallon tank on the 9th floor. Another system used a 275 gallon day tank on the 7th floor.
Several months after the WTC 7 collapse, a contractor recovered an estimated 23,000 gallons of fuel from these tanks. NIST estimated that the unaccounted fuel totaled 1,000 ±1,000 gallons of fuel (in other words, somewhere between 0 and 2,000 gallons, with 1,000 gallons the most likely figure). The fate of the fuel in the day tanks was unknown, so NIST assumed the worst-case scenario, namely that they were full on Sept. 11, 2001. The fate of the fuel of two 6,000 gallon tanks was also unknown. Therefore, NIST also assumed the worst-case scenario for these tanks, namely that all of the fuel would have been available to feed fires either at ground level or on the 5th floor. “
Lt. Tony-

Typically, you take things out of context. You left out the the substantive replies to your wild allegations. Yes, there is plenty of sarcasm, because we fundamentally disagree on the premise.

Again, my questions are

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maO0GE7ndE8
As an investigator, if you had this type of witness testimony, would you test the debris for “exotic accelerants?” Can you give us any reason that follows national standards, or any criminal codes that would explain why NIST would refuse to test for “exotic accelerants?”

How could we prove that terrorists didn't use explosives in addition the airplane strikes?

What I am saying is in the biggest crime of our lifetimes, and the first 3 high-rise collapses due to fire, don’t you find it unacceptable that N.I.S.T. refused to test for explosive residue, when even NFPA 921 is so clear on the indicators of “exotic accelerants”?

Think about it – we would test a house fire for accelerants if we had those types of indicators. Shouldn’t we be even more thorough on the first high rise collapses, that caused the death of so many? Can anybody legitimately explain why a simple test that could have put this all to bed was so aggressively avoided?

Am I missing the answers that follow national standards and cite code or law? All, I’m seeing are opinions, "it's obvious - apply the laws of physics" and “I WAS THERE!!!” type answers.

[LtTony]

Let me hit you with my own conspiracy theory.

LtTony is part of the 9/11 conspiracy group. His mission was to start the thread acting indignant at the theory of this group. He posts, and we move to disprove the conspiracy theory. BOOM, out of the woodwork come the believers and they post all kinds of drivel. LtTony then attempts to refute their theories and sets them up to post more in rebuttal and new information from the conspiracy.

Chew on that awhile conspiracy buffs!!

I've been busted!!!!

[VinDicator911]

Sensitive information that does prove an inside job

Hello All,

I just ran across this thread being talked about on another site. Although I can understand everyone's displeasure with 9/11 conspiracy theories I think you should pay special attention to this information or evidence that I think you are all unaware of.

Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) bypassed all the theorizing about the Pentagon attack and went out to Arlington, VA to painstakingly and forensically track where the attack jet flew or if there was a plane at all in order to put the theories to rest and to figure out exactly what happened.

To give you a brief summation:

One of the details they were looking to confirm or refute was a comment made by Sgt William Lagasse of the Pentagon police force. In an e-mail, he had told another researcher that he was on the starboard side of the plane while refueling his patrol cruiser at the former Citgo gas station.

This would mean the plane approached on the north side of the gas station which would be fatal to the official story and the story told by the cab driver.

To cut to the chase, CIT not only confirmed this fact but corroborated it with 12 other people nearly all recorded or filmed on location. They were all adamant and emphatic in the fact that plane was on the north side of the gas station. In fact, one witness indicated that the plane pulled up into an ascent over the highway, essentially right before the wall. This clearly meant the plane did not and could not hit, because the plane HAS TO BE on the south side of the gas station in order to: hit the light poles,which in turn hits the cab (pole #1), to show up low and level as the grainy object in the video does, to hit the fence/gen trailer with it's right engine/wing, skim into the 1st and under the 2nd floor causing the directional internal damage leading to the C ring hole, and to match the very anomalous and irreconcilable flight data/lat long points from the plane's black box. The directional damage lines up exclusively with a plane on the south side ONLY.

The official story damage/flight path, endorsed by gov't, as described above:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdj...eature=related

To boot, CIT even obtained an account from a Pentagon police officer, Roosevelt Roberts, who saw THE plane flying away literally AFTER the explosion on the other side of the alleged impact point. This is the only thing the plane could have done after approaching on the north side of the gas station.

After first obtaining an interview with the cab driver and confirming his absurd and impossible story of an entire light pole spearing his cab without so much as even scratching his hood, CIT then ended up obtaining all the north of the Citgo flight path witness accounts thus proving he wasn't telling the truth because the plane was nowhere near the poles, ESPECIALLY his pole (#1). So CIT went back and re-interviewed and interrogated him. At one point, off camera when he didn't know he was being recorded and once he realized CIT knew the truth, he subtley admitted involvement:

"One thing about it you gotta understand something when people do things and get away with it, you - eventually its gonna come to me; and when it comes to me its going to be so big I can't do nothing about it."

~Pentagon Taxi Cab Driver Lloyde England

The majority of these witnesses are now afraid to talk after being made aware of the implications of what they saw. Keep in mind, the reason they were willing to talk was because they were so successfully fooled. After watching CIT's presentation, Sgt Brooks said CIT's findings were an "eye-opener" and "anything is possible" when it comes to him being fooled that day. I know your knee-jerk reaction is to laugh at this and dismiss it with a hand-wave (which is why the operation was so successful). You will probably post links to "hundreds" of witnesses who "saw" the plane "hit" the building. But many of you will be surprised to learn that many of these witnesses merely DEDUCED an impact because they saw a plane go by and then saw smoke or a fireball rise in the distance. Many alleged "witnesses" have VERY dubious connections coupled with improbable timing of being in the right place at the right time as can be proven. Many of you will ask where are all of the witnesses to a "flyover/away", but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There is evidence for other genuine witnesses who saw this event happen, but as you will see with officer Roosevelt Roberts and others, many are afraid of the possible repercussions of coming forward. Regardless, an unanalyzed compilation of static media accounts/blurbs is not counter evidence when considering that CIT went out and independently verified and corroborated this very simple right or left/black or white detail while also confirming or denying details from said static media accounts/blurbs.

Here is what we are talking about:
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e2...loydandNoC.jpg

Here is the re-interview/interrogation with Lloyde England the cab driver:
http://thepentacon.com/eyeofthestorm.htm

All of the witnesses, including flyover/flyaway witness, Roosevelt Roberts:
http://thepentacon.com/northsideflyover.htm

The police officers by themselves:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elKov_UZDQE

Gif of Citgo Employee describing pull-up ascent:
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a3...bertpullup.gif

CIT has also interviewed victims, cameramen, rescue/recovery, and firefighters like this one who they will be revealing in their upcoming presentations. He is a now a retired ACFD captain who was there that day inside the Pentagon and has been on 5 plane crashes including the Air Florida crash in his 29 years of service. He DOES NOT believe a 757 hit the Pentagon.

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e2.../FireCapn1.jpg
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e2.../FireCapn2.jpg
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e2.../FireCapn3.jpg

[ChiefKN]

Nice try Chief, but you are tap dancing now. The bottom line is that in neither the official NIST theory of what happened, or the "conspiracy" theory of what happened, did the WTC 1 & 2 collapses play a role in the collapse of WTC 7 from the standpoint of "buildings falling on top of one another".

Your claim...
WTC7 failed because two very large skyscrapers fell on it


...is totally false, and I'm astounded that you are actually trying to debate this point.

Typical conspiracy nut-job response. Take a portion of one comment and make it into something it was not. Total misrepresentation of my opinion.

I also made comments about the fact that a fire burned for more than seven hours weakening steel TRUSSES in the building. This is not your typical skyscraper.

Please educate yourself before you come and talk to those of us with some knowledge of the topic. You look like a fool.

300 feet from the base of "WTC"? Which WTC Chief? The NIST report states that "None of the large pieces of debris from WTC 2 (the south tower) hit WTC 7 because of the large distance between the two buildings. ", yet if a completely uninformed person were to read your statement, they would get the impression that both towers 1 & 2 toppled over, landed on top of building 7, and caused it's eventual collapse. We both know no such thing happened.

WTC7 is between 300 and 350 feet from the north tower.

When the North Tower collapsed, it collapsed straight down, in a manner parallel with the forces of gravity. Yes the collapse created a debris cloud of pulverized material in mid air that landed outside the footprint of the building, and some of that debris hit WTC 7. I posted a section from the NIST FAQ that addressed this...

Photos of WTC 7 Damage and Flying Debris

The great FDNY Chief John Norman

"From there (Verizon Building), we looked out at 7 World Trade Center again. You could see smoke, but no visible fire, and some damage to the south face. You couldn?t really see from where we were on the west face of the building, but at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged. "

Captain Chris Boyle:

Boyle:"...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good."

Firehouse: "When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?"

Boyle: "I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it."

Firehouse: "When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?"

Boyle: "There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it."

Debris hit WTC 7 but it did not cause the collapse. The NIST theory asserts that fire did...

Did Debris hit it or not? You keep changing your story.

What created the huge gaping 20 story hole that Captain Boyle describes?

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden:

"...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse."

Deputy Chief Nick Visconti:

"I don't know how long this was going on, but I remember standing there looking over at building 7 and realizing that a big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side."

Chief Frank Fellini:

The major concern at that time at that particular location was number Seven, building number seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell, it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street."

Are you going to call them liars?

... and if it was indeed fire that caused WTC 7's collapse, then we are back to square one; that this collapse of a high rise structure due to fire was totally unprecedented in history.

Name the last time a fire in a 40 story office building with this construction was allowed to burn?

Can't name it, right? So, how can you ask for a comparison?

So a high rise structure that was not hit by aircraft suffers total collapse "due to fire" on a day when terrorists are clearly attacking other buildings with aircraft, and the investigators fail to test that building for explosive residue.

It didn't have a total collapse, it collapsed. It collapsed in a very disorganized manner.

This building was severely damaged by falling steel from the Towers and caught on fire, it then burned for greater than seven hours.

The fact that you, as a firefighter, can't imagine what happens to steel trusses in SEVEN hours is appalling.

Even in your rosy view of the world this should be viewed as a monumental blunder.

Yes, your ignorance of the facts, building construction, and the effects of fire on a steel building is indeed very sad.

.

[CaptOldTimer]

If Marilyn Monroe was doing Jack Kennedy, who was doing Abe Lincoln??

Slick Willie was doing Monica!

Gotta know...

[ChiefKN]

So, you’re telling me that Barry Jennings who was blown down by an explosion inside the stairwell of Tower 7 PRIOR TO EITHER Tower 1 or Tower 2 collapsing is lying because you were and didn’t hear anything? So, in an investigation if you had several witnesses that were inside a building and saw multiple bright white flashes coming from within the stairwells, but you had witnesses outside the building who saw nothing you would not investigate the source of the flashes?

When a floor collapses or a portion of a floor collapses, it makes a big booming noise and also will displace air.

Again, proves nothing.

George, I understand very clearly, as does everybody here – you were there. I hear your statement that you didn’t hear explosions. But, I also hear the testimony of those that were inside that did hear explosions well BEFORE the collapse. What I’m not hearing from you though are any national standards that allow for the destruction of evidence, and refusal to test debris for accelerants.

It proves nothing. The investigation was done, an uneducated, non-scientist, non-enginner, LAY person like you doesn't like the results or the methods, so what?

Go to school get some initials and education, draw a consensus of a hundred of your peers and then maybe someone will listen. Until then, you are barking at the moon.

Plus, the NFPA is clear – “19.4.8.2.6 Extremism – Extremist-motivated fire setting is committed to further a social, political, or religious cause.
….
(a) Terrorism. The targets set by terrorists may appear to be at random; however, target locations are generally selected with some degree of political or economic significance. Political targets generally include government offices, newspapers, universities, political party headquarters, and military or law enforcement installation………………..
The terrorist may include fire as but one of a variety of weapons, along with explosives, used in furthering his or her goal.”

I read that as we should consider the use of explosives by terrorists in addition to fire.

Are you claiming the NFPA supports your position? They don't.

Explosives were considered, and discounted.

I refuse to believe because the Tower 7 investigation DID NOT FOLLOW NATIONAL STANDARDS, and included no physical evidence – so it is just a hypothesis!

Please quote the "standards" for this scenario? There are none. Mistakes were made in the investigation, as they are in every investigation, however, as I clearly point out above, there was significant damage to the seven, it burned unchecked and then collapsed. There were signs as early as five hours before that it would.

How is quoting a firefighter reporting explosions taken out of context? I could include the entire transcripts, but I don’t think you would read them. When you take witness reports – you don’t ask the witness what the cause is. You take all the statements, and investigate yourself. Plus, PD found a van full of explosives on 9/11/01 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CHq6JocvDM
– do you think that was just a coincidence too? Remember, too, Tower 7 WAS NOT struck by an airplane, and there were witness reports of explosions PRIOR TO any tower collapses. THAT NEEDS TO BE INVESTIGATED!!

Van full of explosives.... ahh... okay. Not relevant that I can tell Certainly, never confirmed. In fact, Chief of NYPD states that it was not true.

See, I live here in the metro area. It was a confusing day, with lots and lots of conflicting reports. But go ahead, hang your hat on that.

Alone, no, it doesn’t prove anything, but that’s what lab analysis and physical evidence is for. But, Tower 7 had neither – just hypotheses that nobody can agree on.
hmmm – let’s see, clearing all debris, not saving ANY, having all the steel melted down, and ALL THIS prior to the investigation that was supposed to determine cause….do you have a better word than destroyed?

Yes, all those construction workers, demolition contractors (who were hired to clean up the site), cops, firefighters, FBI agents, OSHA inspectors...etc..etc. are part of the new world order!

Where would we be if we ignored the hard facts? We’d BE in the mess we’re in today. Again, no physical evidence was used to determine how Tower 7 came down, and NIST only investigated up until collapse initiation of Towers 1 or 2. They didn’t seem to think it was important to learn how the building below the impact zone (which was all COLD hard steel and concrete) crumbled straight down at near free-fall speed. So, therefore we don’t know how to make the buildings safer because it wasn’t investigated.

There is more than enough evidence and certainly everything that is known points to the very obvious conclusion. The North Tower collapse severely damaged the building and then it was further weakened by an extensive amount of fire damage.

Again, several witnesses on the outside not hearing something doesn’t prove witnesses on the inside were mistaken.

As above, floors collapsing and partially collapsing make a big boom. In addition, the bodies falling in the street and courtyard also made very loud explosion noises.

Have you listened to him speak? He was the head of the division and he describes how poorly the investigation was done. Yes, that’s alarming in the worst fire disaster in history. Plus, there are over 600 architects and engineers who have put their name to demanding a new investigation.

Simply wanting a new investigation doesn't mean (and in the case of this gentleman) they agree that there was some alternative explanation. Just that they have a particular point of interest that needs further review.

Your using it is dishonest.

ChiefKN- This is a major FALSE belief of those who support the official story. I challenge you to read the report. From NIST again – “Did fuel oil systems in WTC 7 contribute to its collapse?
No. The building had three separate emergency power systems, all of which ran on diesel fuel. The worst-case scenarios associated with fires being fed by ruptured fuel lines—or from fuel stored in day tanks on the lower floors—could not have been sustained long enough, could not have generated sufficient heat to weaken critical interior columns, and/or would have produced large amounts of visible smoke from the lower floors, which were not observed.
As background information, the three systems contained two 12,000 gallon fuel tanks, and two 6,000 gallon tanks beneath the building’s loading docks, and a single 6,000 gallon tank on the 1st floor. In addition one system used a 275 gallon tank on the 5th floor, a 275 gallon tank on the 8th floor, and a 50 gallon tank on the 9th floor. Another system used a 275 gallon day tank on the 7th floor.
Several months after the WTC 7 collapse, a contractor recovered an estimated 23,000 gallons of fuel from these tanks. NIST estimated that the unaccounted fuel totaled 1,000 ±1,000 gallons of fuel (in other words, somewhere between 0 and 2,000 gallons, with 1,000 gallons the most likely figure). The fate of the fuel in the day tanks was unknown, so NIST assumed the worst-case scenario, namely that they were full on Sept. 11, 2001. The fate of the fuel of two 6,000 gallon tanks was also unknown. Therefore, NIST also assumed the worst-case scenario for these tanks, namely that all of the fuel would have been available to feed fires either at ground level or on the 5th floor. “

I merely point out that it may have contributed, but it's not a needed element. Fine, you win that one. They played no role. Doesn't change the reality of what happened.

Am I missing the answers that follow national standards and cite code or law?

What standards? Again, you are asking for something that doesn't exist.

Chasing at windmills.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

So, you’re telling me that Barry Jennings who was blown down by an explosion inside the stairwell of Tower 7 PRIOR TO EITHER Tower 1 or Tower 2 collapsing is lying because you were and didn’t hear anything? So, in an investigation if you had several witnesses that were inside a building and saw multiple bright white flashes coming from within the stairwells, but you had witnesses outside the building who saw nothing you would not investigate the source of the flashes?

George, I understand very clearly, as does everybody here – you were there. I hear your statement that you didn’t hear explosions. But, I also hear the testimony of those that were inside that did hear explosions well BEFORE the collapse. What I’m not hearing from you though are any national standards that allow for the destruction of evidence, and refusal to test debris for accelerants.

Plus, the NFPA is clear – “19.4.8.2.6 Extremism – Extremist-motivated fire setting is committed to further a social, political, or religious cause.
….
(a) Terrorism. The targets set by terrorists may appear to be at random; however, target locations are generally selected with some degree of political or economic significance. Political targets generally include government offices, newspapers, universities, political party headquarters, and military or law enforcement installation………………..
The terrorist may include fire as but one of a variety of weapons, along with explosives, used in furthering his or her goal.”

I read that as we should consider the use of explosives by terrorists in addition to fire.

I refuse to believe because the Tower 7 investigation DID NOT FOLLOW NATIONAL STANDARDS, and included no physical evidence – so it is just a hypothesis!


How is quoting a firefighter reporting explosions taken out of context? I could include the entire transcripts, but I don’t think you would read them. When you take witness reports – you don’t ask the witness what the cause is. You take all the statements, and investigate yourself. Plus, PD found a van full of explosives on 9/11/01 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CHq6JocvDM
– do you think that was just a coincidence too? Remember, too, Tower 7 WAS NOT struck by an airplane, and there were witness reports of explosions PRIOR TO any tower collapses. THAT NEEDS TO BE INVESTIGATED!!


Alone, no, it doesn’t prove anything, but that’s what lab analysis and physical evidence is for. But, Tower 7 had neither – just hypotheses that nobody can agree on.
hmmm – let’s see, clearing all debris, not saving ANY, having all the steel melted down, and ALL THIS prior to the investigation that was supposed to determine cause….do you have a better word than destroyed?




Where would we be if we ignored the hard facts? We’d BE in the mess we’re in today. Again, no physical evidence was used to determine how Tower 7 came down, and NIST only investigated up until collapse initiation of Towers 1 or 2. They didn’t seem to think it was important to learn how the building below the impact zone (which was all COLD hard steel and concrete) crumbled straight down at near free-fall speed. So, therefore we don’t know how to make the buildings safer because it wasn’t investigated.

Again, several witnesses on the outside not hearing something doesn’t prove witnesses on the inside were mistaken.


Have you listened to him speak? He was the head of the division and he describes how poorly the investigation was done. Yes, that’s alarming in the worst fire disaster in history. Plus, there are over 600 architects and engineers who have put their name to demanding a new investigation.



Lt. Tony – the only fact that you could find? Have you listened to him speak yourself? He’s very clear – the investigation did not answer the question – Did we have a faulty design, or did the airplane cause the collapse? We DON’T KNOW. He also says we need to look at real alternatives to cause of collapse. Now, remember, he was the Chief of the Fire Division of NIST. He is very critical of the investigation, and I did include the part So how can you say I was being dishonest?

He says the key to the investigation is to set a timeline from witness accounts, video, information from alarm systems, and then by calculations. He said NIST did not do a timeline which is troubling. He is also critical of the destruction of evidence, and called for it to stop. He used the term “throwing away” evidence though which is a little more p.c. then what I’m saying. So yes, Chief KN and Lt. Tony – that does concern me, and it should you too. The fact the many leaders in fire investigation, and Bill Manning from Fire Engineering called for the destruction of evidence to stop, and yet it did not. Whether they believe explosives were involved or not is beside the point – the investigation has major faults, and therefore should not be blindly believed.

Listen to him- Session M21 on June 4 (69 minutes) and Spotlight Session T54 on June 5 (102 minutes). http://www.fleetwoodonsite.com/index...&osCsid=04863b



“We as a society accept the basic premise that a group of Islamist terrorists hijacked four airplanes and turned them into weapons against us. Sadly, the noble search for truth is now being hijacked by a growing army of conspiracy theorists.
…
[T]hose who peddle fantasies that this country encouraged, permitted or actually carried out the attacks are libeling the truth -- and disgracing the memories of the thousands who died that day. “
So, yes Lt. Tony, when you start your article with these statements and basically shut down anybody (especially the family members who lost loved ones) who has legitimate questions with this type of language – yes, I’d say it’s smear tactics. And, as far as the name calling, yes it is a hot button because it shuts down honest debate and communication. Remember, family members of the victims started the 9/11 Truth movement.


Screaming is cranking up your font to a size 40, big bold CAPS (like so many do here), and stating that in your declarations or mission statement. Talking about the events – news stories not being covered (which I can prove to you) Whistleblowers not being allowed to speak (which I can prove to you) high ranking military officers claiming we have “domestic enemies” (which I can prove to you) is not screaming “conspiracy theory”, it’s stating facts.
what? Support what position? Me going into details about private conversations I have had with firefighters who lived through hell that day –what exactly does that prove? You want names and stories – you can email me privately. My issue is with the unacceptable investigation, destruction of evidence, refusal to test for anything that may have accelerated the buildings destruction, and Congress’ refusal to pass the Health and Compensation Act. My issue is not with ANY of the firefighters or rescue workers who lived through hell, and responded courageously.
If you read my letter, I only really critically looked at 9/11 last year, I had the same beliefs as most of you prior to March of 2008. I took Dunn’s classes over 5 years ago.

If you really want clarification, and aren’t just being sarcastic, I would recommend reading “The Creature from Jekyll Island” and watching Aaron Russo’s (produced Trading Places, the Rose, and ran for Nevada governor) documentary called “Freedom to Fascism” (don’t worry it’s not about 911)– http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...80303867390173 and then be sure to watch his interview about the movie where he talks about his friendship with Rockefeller.

Wouldn’t that be a conspiracy Lt. Tony if they weren’t firefighters but we’re pretending to be-and you clearly don't believe in conspiracies. And, how do we know you are really a firefighter?

ChiefKN- This is a major FALSE belief of those who support the official story. I challenge you to read the report. From NIST again – “Did fuel oil systems in WTC 7 contribute to its collapse?
No. The building had three separate emergency power systems, all of which ran on diesel fuel. The worst-case scenarios associated with fires being fed by ruptured fuel lines—or from fuel stored in day tanks on the lower floors—could not have been sustained long enough, could not have generated sufficient heat to weaken critical interior columns, and/or would have produced large amounts of visible smoke from the lower floors, which were not observed.
As background information, the three systems contained two 12,000 gallon fuel tanks, and two 6,000 gallon tanks beneath the building’s loading docks, and a single 6,000 gallon tank on the 1st floor. In addition one system used a 275 gallon tank on the 5th floor, a 275 gallon tank on the 8th floor, and a 50 gallon tank on the 9th floor. Another system used a 275 gallon day tank on the 7th floor.
Several months after the WTC 7 collapse, a contractor recovered an estimated 23,000 gallons of fuel from these tanks. NIST estimated that the unaccounted fuel totaled 1,000 ±1,000 gallons of fuel (in other words, somewhere between 0 and 2,000 gallons, with 1,000 gallons the most likely figure). The fate of the fuel in the day tanks was unknown, so NIST assumed the worst-case scenario, namely that they were full on Sept. 11, 2001. The fate of the fuel of two 6,000 gallon tanks was also unknown. Therefore, NIST also assumed the worst-case scenario for these tanks, namely that all of the fuel would have been available to feed fires either at ground level or on the 5th floor. “
Lt. Tony- Again, my questions are
Am I missing the answers that follow national standards and cite code or law? All, I’m seeing are opinions, "it's obvious - apply the laws of physics" and “I WAS THERE!!!” type answers.

Allow me to translate.

Yes, he is ignoring what I have to say.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Are you going to call them liars?

He already has.

[koolaid1]

When a floor collapses or a portion of a floor collapses, it makes a big booming noise and also will displace air

Again, proves nothing.

Barry Jennings and many of the firefighters heard explosions WELL BEFORE any floor collapses. And, as Dr Quintiere so clearly points out - NIST did not do a timeline - obviously this would have been critical in establishing what was heard when. Can you name any other major investigation without a timeline? Why would you not test the debris to see if there were explosives planted anywhere?

Please quote the "standards" for this scenario? There are none. Mistakes were made in the investigation, as they are in every investigation, however, as I clearly point out above, there was significant damage to the seven, it burned unchecked and then collapsed. There were signs as early as five hours before that it would.

So, let me be clear. You are saying since this is a different scenario – we don’t follow any national standards or evidentiary laws – and investigators are free to “wing it” And, it’s really no big deal that they did the whole investigation with NO Physical Evidence.
If you’re saying the building collapsed due to fire -
(And, that is what NIST says – they say it would have collapsed even without any debris damage- as from their report – “Would WTC 7 have collapsed even if there had been no structural damage induced by the collapse of the WTC towers?
Yes. Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from the fires that the debris initiated. The growth and spread of the lower-floor fires due to the loss of water supply to the sprinklers from the city mains was enough to initiate the collapse of the entire building due to buckling of a critical column in the northeast region of the building.”
that we shouldn’t use the National Fire Investigation Standards – what should we use then?

It proves nothing. The investigation was done, an uneducated, non-scientist, non-enginner, LAY person like you doesn't like the results or the methods, so what?

Go to school get some initials and education, draw a consensus of a hundred of your peers and then maybe someone will listen. Until then, you are barking at the moon.

Actually, I like the way you spelled enginner – because my Engineering professors used to joke “yesterday I couldn’t spell Enghinear – but today I are on.” I have a Bachelor of Science in Mathematics, with an Engineering Emphasis from the University of California at Davis. But, I’m not claiming to be an expert of anything. Many of the experts who are demanding a new investigation do have lots of initials and education, and you should watch Richard Gage’s presentation at www.ae911truth.org and he does have a consensus of 640 + Architects and Engineers- are you listening to them?

What standards? Again, you are asking for something that doesn't exist.

I couldn’t agree more. They don’t exist because every criminal arson investigation is supposed to protect the physical evidence, and test the debris for accelerants. There are plenty of federal evidence laws and national standards that say this. They don’t go out the window because it was a BIG event, and because planes were used to start the fire.

[koolaid1]

Allow me to translate.

Yes, he is ignoring what I have to say.

George, I am not ignoring what you have to say. I ask you - does the fact that you didn't hear explosions later in the day in front of the college, mean that the original firefighters on the inside, numerous others, and Barry Jennings didn't hear them earlier in the day?

[Dickey]

Hey, wait a minute.....both Kennedy AND Lincoln were Presidents when they were shot......OMG!!!........they were BOTH shot......shot with guns!!


Oh this is big!

[DeputyChiefGonzo]

So RanierDoofus....What do you have to say to the FACT that George was THERE, and witnessed the collapse of #7 with his own two eyes and ears?

Add E40L35 and E229LT to that list of who was there...