Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse

Firehouse.com Forum Rules & Guidelines

Forum Rules & Guidelines

Not Permitted or Tolerated:
• Advertising and/or links of commercial, for-profit websites, products, and/or services is not permitted. If you have a need to advertise on Firehouse.com please contact [email protected]
• Fighting/arguing
• Cyber-bullying
• Swearing
• Name-calling and/or personal attacks
• Spamming
• Typing in all CAPS
• “l33t speak” - Substituting characters for letters in an effort to represent a word or phrase. (example: M*****ive)
• Distribution of another person’s personal information, regardless of whether or not said information is public knowledge and whether or not an individual has permission to post said personal information
• Piracy advocation of any kind
• Racist, sexual, hate type defamatory, religious, political, or sexual commentary.
• Multiple forum accounts

Forum Posting Guidelines:

Posts must be on-topic, non-disruptive and relevant to the firefighting community. Post only in a mature and responsible way that contributes to the discussion at hand. Posting relevant information, helpful suggestions and/or constructive criticism is a great way to contribute to the community.

Post in the correct forum and have clear titles for your threads.

Please post in English or provide a translation.

There are moderators and admins who handle these forums with care, do not resort to self-help, instead please utilize the reporting option. Be mature and responsible for yourself and your posts. If you are offended by another member utilize the reporting option. All reported posts will be addressed and dealt with as deemed appropriate by Firehouse.com staff.

Firehouse.com Moderation Process:
Effective immediately, the following moderation process will take effect. User(s) whose posts are determined by Firehouse.com staff to be in violation of any of the rules above will EARN the following reprimand(s) in the moderation process:
1. An initial warning will be issued.
2. A Final Warning will be issued if a user is found to be in violation a second time.
3. A 3-day suspension will be issued if the user continues to break the forum rules.
4. A 45-day suspension will be issued if the user is found to be a habitual rule breaker.
5. Habitual rule breakers that have exhausted all of the above will receive a permanent life-time ban that will be strictly enforced. Reinstatement will not be allowed – there is no appeal process.

Subsequent accounts created in an effort to side-step the rules and moderation process are subject to automatic removal without notice. Firehouse.com reserves the right to expedite the reprimand process for any users as it is deemed necessary. Any user in the moderation process may be required to review and agree to by email the terms and conditions listed above before their account is re-instated (except for those that are banned).

Firehouse.com reserves the right to edit and/or remove any post or member, at any time, for any reason without notice. Firehouse.com also reserves the right to warn, suspend, and/or ban, any member, at any time, for any reason.

Firehouse.com values the active participation we have in our forums. Please ensure your posts are tasteful and tactful. Thank you very much for your cooperation.
See more
See less

Firefightersfor9-11truth.org

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by koolaid1 View Post
    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?
    I was not going to waste my time responding to any more of this crap, but I saw this and could not resist.

    I am a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). ASCE has a worldwide membership of about 146,000. In my experience, about 1/3 of the engineers I have met in my 18 year career belong to ASCE. So, for the sake of argument, let’s assume there are 438,000 civil engineers in the world that would be eligible for ASCE membership (a low number).

    The American Institute of Architects has a membership of about 86,000. I don't really know if their membership percentage is more or less then with ASCE, but, for the sake of argument, we will put their number at 2x their membership, 172,000.

    That makes a total of 610,000 design professionals that do or would be eligible to belong to one of these organizations.

    You are basing your BS on the opinion of less then 1/10 of 1% of the design professionals in the world.

    And you are going to lecture me that you are right and I am wrong?

    Not by a long shot there skippy.
    Last edited by PATF1engineer; 04-15-2009, 05:09 PM. Reason: fixed spelling
    Thomas Anthony, PE
    Structures Specialist PA-TF1 & PA-ST1
    Paramedic / Rescue Tech North Huntington Twp EMS
    The artist formerly known as Captain 10-2

    No, I am not a water rescue technician, but I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by CaptainGonzo View Post
      Add E40L35 and E229LT to that list of who was there...
      Chief, I need to make it abundantly clear that what I was dong there, and what Ray and the good Loo were doing there were two entirely different things. They are among heroes and were risking their lives that day. The closest I came to risking my life that day was riding through an empty Holland Tunnel with my partner flying, errr driving the truck.
      PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by PATF1engineer View Post
        I was not going to waste my time responding to any more of this crap, but I saw this and could not resist.

        I am a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). ASCE has a worldwide membership of about 146,000. In my experience, about 1/3 of the engineers I have met in my 18 year career belong to ASCE. So, for the sake of argument, let’s assume there are 438,000 civil engineers in the world that would be eligible for ASCE membership (a low number).

        The American Institute of Architects has a membership of about 86,000. I don't really know if their membership percentage is more or less then with ASCE, but, for the sake of argument, we will put their number at 2x their membership, 172,000.

        That makes a total of 610,000 design professionals that do or would be eligible to belong to one of these organizations.

        You are basing your BS on the opinion of less then 1/10 of 1% of the design professionals in the world.
        add this to PAT's rebuttal:

        http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a...06412?lnk=raot

        The claim that a whole slew of engineers have significant doubts about the event is a fraud.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by koolaid1 View Post
          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?
          Name any other major investigation of an incident like this. You can't, it doesn't exist.

          So don't compare apples and oranges.


          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.
          I think the most compelling piece of evidence is overlooked by kooks like you. The Video of the planes flying into the towers.

          We have video of the cause of this disaster.

          Why do you overlook the obvious? What agenda are you really pushing here?

          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?
          I'm saying that there were multiple reasons why seven collapsed.

          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?
          Please point to the standards you would like them to use and cite what they didn't do. Oh, and please keep in mind the particulars of THIS incident.

          We had a fire once at a church in a nearby town. Good investigation technique would be to enter the burned out church and finish the invest. However, the building was SO unstable that it wasn't prudent to do that.

          I guess that you could say the investigation didn't follow these mythical standards that you keep referencing to. However, it was the 100% right thing to do for THAT incident.

          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?
          That was a typo, I type fast because I don't want to waste a whole more time with this nonsense then I have to.

          Your definition of "expert" and mine are completely different. My experts are members of professional boards and agencies. Not webmasters of conspiracy, bizarre domain names (which I won't list here because they don't deserve the mention).

          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.
          They go out the window based on the opinion of the investigators. Happens every day, as the incident dictates.

          ARE YOU GOING TO CALL THOSE FIREFIGHTERS I LISTED BEFORE LIARS?
          I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

          "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

          "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

          Comment


          • 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
            We discussed your flimsy Jennings argument on page 3. Please try to keep up.
            http://forums.firehouse.com/showpost...2&postcount=51

            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.
            Again, discussed. Some thought they heard something that sounded like an explosion. Nothing more than that has been brought forward.

            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!
            I thought we covered this before, too.

            http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/f...qa_082108.html

            http://911myths.com/html/recycled_steel.html

            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!!
            Once more, they said it "sounded like explosions." This has been discussed ad nauseum all over the internet. No FFs today, that I am aware of, say they heard and saw explosions, and that explosive charges caused the collapses.

            The van? A myth.

            http://www.911myths.com/index.php/A_..._of_explosives

            http://911myths.com/html/dancing_israelis.html

            Do think it was Mossad that brought down WTC7?

            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?
            See above. You wouldn't be happy unless every shred of debris was saved.

            "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?
            You are correct. You included that quote, and I overlooked it. I apologize and will remove it.

            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.
            No I haven't heard him speak, but I've read his stuff, which -- repeating again -- I and others addressed. His issues are about fireproofing and structural members, not "alternative" causes.

            The 600 engineers myth was adressed above. Repeating untruths over and over will not help your cause, btw.

            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.
            What he said and what we are hearing you say are two different things, I'm afraid. You make huge leaps to illogical conclusions. You claim he said the same thing you are saying, only in a more "PC" way. Stop the mind reading.
            BTW, he left the NIST in 1989. He was not in charge during 9/11. I'm uncertain to what extent he was involved in the actual investigation of WTC7. I could do some speculative mind reading here, but I won't.

            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
            No. I read him here:

            http://www.fpe.umd.edu/documents/QuintiereNATOFinal.pdf

            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.
            What "leaders" in fire investigation? Name them.

            I read Bill Manning's article at the time and since. He was talking about the Skyscraper Safety Program, not explosions. Have you talked to him? Maybe you should, if you're going to quote him to support conspiracies.

            http://www.911myths.com/html/jones_quotes_manning_.html

            Manning has "questions about building design practices and performance under fire conditions, and calls this the largest fire-induced collapse in world history."

            Explosions -- which you are claiming -- are not "beside the point." It is clearly the point. You are implying explosions brought down those buildings. Don't mix in someone else's objections to the report for completely different reasons into your conspiracy notion.

            “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.
            Well, you've got a funny definition of what constitutes smear. Better grow a thicker skin if your going to continue with your campaign.

            You want a "smear," try this:

            "Remember, family members of the victims started the 9/11 Truth movement."

            That is false.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Truth_Movement

            Are you trying to tell us organizations like this support your version of events:
            http://www.911familiesforamerica.org/
            http://www.airdisaster.com/forums/index.php
            http://www.911independentcommission.org/index.html
            ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Fa...ring_Committee )
            http://www.wtclivinghistory.org/
            http://www.911families.org/
            http://www.911fsa.org (???)
            http://www.familiesofseptember11.org/

            I've run into this allegation before. A huge majority of families are pursuing high rise safety and health issues, and the war on terrorism. They are NOT conspiracy groups.


            Screaming is cranking up your font to a size 40, big bold CAPS (like so many do here),
            Again you exagerate. In one lone post a person used large type, but he/she was not your opponent. The only other post -- an opposing one -- used TWO words in larger type. Two.
            "Like so many do here..." Pffft.

            Quote:
            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?
            There you go exagerrating and jumping to conclusions again. I think conspiracies are possible, just not the one your are claiming.
            As far as my profession, I've been here for some time, as opposed to your newcomer co-horts. And what you think along those lines matters nothing to me.

            BTW, I asked earlier, if you agreed with their takes, and those sites. Do you?

            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.
            http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/31/mo...gewanted=print

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_fascism

            Things are becoming a little clearer.
            "...we are sending thousands of soldiers to die over this, we are killing hundreds of thousands of humans, our economy is crumbling..."
            What do all of those things have to do with WTC7, which you have since started to concentrate on? We have killed "hundreds of thousands of humans"? I know where you got that disputed estimate, and we ARE NOT responsible for that huge number. (Please start a new thread on this issue if you want to argue it.) But it does tell me where you are coming from. You are pre-disposed to a 9/11 conspiracy theory, likely because you are angry about.... we'll get to that later.

            including members of the 9/11 Commission Report say the investigations were compromised, or severely flawed.
            Who? Building 7 or 9/11 in general. (You switch back and forth, it is hard to keep track.)

            I am amazed at the apathy. With so many of our Brothers murdered, with so many who didn’t hear evacuation orders because of old Motorola radios and a no bid contract, with their remains taken to the dump, with so many Ground Zero workers sick, dying and being tossed aside, with Congress’ refusal to pass the James Zadroga Health and Compensation Act while they ignore the People and so arrogantly bail out the banks and there cronies…
            This is the rant that caused me to ask, "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?"

            So I guess you believe the Rokerfellers, Rothchilds, Tri-Lateral Commision, that sort of thing, secretly control the country. I can't be any more specific because you only indirectly replied, posting a link to a video.

            Let me be more direct:

            Are the "cronies" Jewish?
            Are banks and the media "Zionist controlled"?
            What is your opinion on the state of Israel? On the dispute in Palestine?
            What do the Motorola radios in use have to do with the banks?
            Were Jewish occupants of the WTC alerted ahead of time?
            Was Mossad involved?
            Was Osama Bin Laden involved?
            Should the re-opening the investigation be limited to WTC7 or all of 9/11?
            Do you deny the Holocaust, in the genocide of 6 million Jews?

            Are you aware that some far-right, far-left and militant Islamists organizations are using the same information you are using in much the same way to allege a massive government plot to kill Americans and cover it up?

            Personally, I don't think you are much different from them. You have couched much of your info on WTC7, which I think is a smokescreen. The conspiracists mentioned above do about the same thing.
            Is WTC7 your only issue? Are you satisfied with the official reports on the Towers? I mean, let's cut to the chase here.

            If you are concerned about building design practices and performance under fire conditions, safety issues such as exiting in skyscrapers, improved emergency radio performance, and post-9/11 health issues, then we are on the same page. It is likely that the NIST report on WTC7 has weaknesses, and I have no problem with those issues being revisited.

            But first I need to know your idealogical motivations before I support you or your website. So answer the questions. Directly.

            Frankly, I think you have been duped by evil elements that sow hate, bigotry and despair.




            http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/search?q=NFPA+921
            Last edited by LtTony; 04-18-2009, 01:28 AM.

            Comment


            • The 9/11 Conspiracy Nuts

              September 10, 2006

              By Alexander Cockburn


              You trip over one fundamental idiocy of the 9/11 conspiracy nuts -- -- the ones who say Bush and Cheney masterminded the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon -- in the first paragraph of the opening page of the book by one of their high priests, David Ray Griffin, The New Pearl Harbor. "In many respects," Griffin writes, "the strongest evidence provided by critics of the official account involves the events of 9/11 itself... In light of standard procedures for dealing with hijacked airplanes... not one of these planes should have reached its target, let alone all three of them."

              The operative word here is "should". One characteristic of the nuts is that they have a devout, albeit preposterous belief in American efficiency, thus many of them start with the racist premise that "Arabs in caves" weren't capable of the mission. They believe that military systems work the way Pentagon press flacks and aerospace salesmen say they should work. They believe that at 8.14 am, when AA flight 11 switched off its radio and transponder, an FAA flight controller should have called the National Military Command center and NORAD. They believe, citing reverently (this is from high priest Griffin) "the US Air Force's own website", that an F-15 could have intercepted AA flight 11 "by 8.24, and certainly no later than 8.30".

              They appear to have read no military history, which is too bad because if they did they'd know that minutely planned operations – let alone responses to an unprecedented emergency -- screw up with monotonous regularity, by reason of stupidity, cowardice, venality, weather and all the other whims of providence.

              According to the minutely prepared plans of the Strategic Air Command, an impending Soviet attack would have prompted the missile silos in North Dakota to open, and the ICBMs to arc towards Moscow and kindred targets. The tiny number of test launches actually attempted all failed, whereupon SAC gave up testing. Was it badly designed equipment, human incompetence, defense contractor venality or... CONSPIRACY? (In that case, presumably, a Communist conspiracy, as outlined by ancestors of the present nuts, ever intent on identifying those who would stab America in the back.)

              Did the British and French forces in 1940 break and flee a Wehrmacht capable of only one lunge, because of rotten leadership, terrible planning, epic cowardice, or ... CONSPIRACY? Did the April 24, 1980 effort to rescue the hostages in the US embassy in Teheran fail because a sandstorm disabled three of the eight helicopters, because the helicopters were poorly made, because of a lousy plan or because of agents of William Casey and the Republican National Committee poured sugar into their gas tanks in yet another CONSPIRACY?

              Have the US military's varying attempts to explain why F-15s didn't intercept and shoot down the hijacked planes stemmed from absolutely predictable attempts to cover up the usual screw-ups, or because of CONSPIRACY? Is Mr Cohen in his little store at the end of the block hiking his prices because he wants to make a buck, or because his rent just went up or because the Jews want to take over the world? August Bebel said anti-Semitism is the socialism of the fools. These days the 9/11 conspiracy fever threatens to become the "socialism" of the left, and the passe-partout of many libertarians.

              It's awful. My in-box overflows each day with fresh "proofs" of how the WTC buildings were actually demolished, often accompanied by harsh insults identifying me as a "gate-keeper" preventing the truth from getting out. I meet people who start quietly, asking me "what I think about 9/11". What they are actually trying to find out is whether I'm part of the coven. I imagine it was like being a Stoic in the second century A.D. going for a stroll in the Forum and meeting some fellow asking, with seeming casualness, whether it's possible to feed 5,000 people on five loaves of bread and a couple of fish.

              Indeed, at my school in the 1950s the vicar used to urge on us Frank Morison's book, Who Moved The Stone? It sought to demonstrate, with exhaustive citation from the Gospels, that since on these accounts no human had moved the stone from in front of Joseph of Arimathea's tomb, it must beyond the shadow of a doubt have been an angel who rolled it aside and let Jesus out, so he could astonish the mourners and then Ascend. Of course Morison didn't admit into his argument the possibility that angels don't exist, or that the gospel writers were making it up.

              It's the same pattern with the 9/11 nuts, who proffer what they demurely call "disturbing questions", though they disdain all answers but their own. They seize on coincidences and force them into sequences they deem to be logical and significant. Like mad Inquisitors, they pounce on imagined clues in documents and photos, torturing the data –- as the old joke goes about economists -- till the data confess. Their treatment of eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence is whimsical. Apparent anomalies that seem to nourish their theories are brandished excitedly; testimony that undermines their theories – like witnesses of a large plane hitting the Pentagon -- is contemptuously brushed aside.

              Anyone familiar with criminal, particularly death penalty defense – I had such an opportunity for a number of years – will know that there are always anomalies the prosecution cannot account for and that the defense teams can exploit, in hopes of swaying a jury either in the guilt or penalty phase of a trial. Time and again I would see the defense team spend days and weeks, even months, back-checking on a possibly vulnerable link in the evidentiary chain that could be attacked, at least to the all-important level of creating "reasonable doubt" in the mind of a juror. Expert witnesses would be imported at great expense –- unlike states such as Texas, the justice system of California is generous in the provision of money for death penalty defense -- to challenge the prosecution's forensic evidence. Such challenges weren't hard to mount. Contrary to prosecutorial claims, there is far less instrinsic certainty in forensic evaluation than is commonly supposed, as regards fingerprints, landing marks on bullets and so forth.

              But minute focus of a death penalty defense team on one such weak link often leads to a distorted view of the whole case. I remember more than one case where, after weeks of interviewing witnesses at one particular crime scene, the defense's investigator had collected enough witness reports to mount a decent attack on this aspect of the prosecution's overall case. At least this is what I thought, hearing the daily bulletins of the investigator. But when, in such instances, the camera pulled back, so to speak, and I saw the prosecution's whole case – chain of evidence, cumulative witness statements, accused's own movements and subsequent statements – it became clear enough to me and, in that case to the juries , that the accused were incontestably guilty. But even then, such cases had a vigorous afterlife, with the defense trying to muster up grounds for an appeal, on the basis of testimony and evidence withheld by the prosecution, faulty rulings by the judge, a prejudiced jury member and so on. A seemingly "cut and dried case" is very rarely beyond challenge, even though in essence it actually may well be just that, "cut and dried".

              Anyone who ever looked at the JFK assassination will know that there are endless anomalies and loose ends. Eyewitness testimony – as so often – is conflicting, forensic evidence possibly misconstrued, mishandled or just missing. But in my view, the Warren Commission, as confirmed in almost all essentials by the House Committee on Assassinations in the late 1970s, had it right and Oswald fired the fatal shots from the Schoolbook Depository. The evidentiary chain for his guilt is persuasive, and the cumulative scenarios of the conspiracy nuts entirely unconvincing. But of course – as the years roll by, and even though no death bed confession has ever buttressed those vast, CIA-related scenarios -- the nuts keep on toiling away, their obsessions as unflagging as ever.

              Naturally, there are conspiracies. I think there is strong evidence that FDR did have knowledge that a Japanese naval force in the north Pacific was going to launch an attack on Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt thought it would be a relatively mild assault and thought it would be the final green light to get the US into the war.

              Of course it's very probable that the FBI or US military intelligence, even the CIA, had penetrated the Al Qaeda team planning the 9/11 attacks; that intelligence reports – some are already known – piled up in various Washington bureaucracies pointing to the impending onslaught and even the manner in which it might be carried out.

              The history of intelligence operations is profuse with example of successful intelligence collection, but also fatal slowness to act on the intelligence, along with eagnerness not to compromise the security and future usefulness of the informant, who has to prove his own credentials by even pressing for prompt action by the plotters. Sometime an undercover agent will actually propose an action, either to deflect efforts away from some graver threat, or to put the plotters in a position where they can be caught red-handed. In their penetrations of environmental groups the FBI certainly did this.

              Long before the Yom Kippur war, a CIA analyst noted Egyptian orders from a German engineering firm, and deduced from the type and size of equipment thus ordered that Egypt was planning an attack across the Suez canal. He worked out the probable size of the Egyptian force and the likely time window for the attack. His superiors at the CIA sat on the report. When the Egyptian army finally attacked on October 6, 1973 the CIA high command ordered up the long-buried report, dusted it off and sent it over to the White House, marked "current intelligence". Was there a "conspiracy" by the CIA high command to allow Israel to be taken by surprise? I doubt it.

              Bureaucratic inertia and caution prevailed, until the moment came for decisive CYA acitvity. The nuts make dizzying "deductive" leaps. There is a one particularly vigorous coven which has established to its own satisfaction that the original NASA moon landing was faked, and never took place. This "conspiracy" would have required the complicity of thousands of people , all of whom have kept their mouths shut. The proponents of the "fake moon landing" plot tend to overlap with the JFK and 9/11 nuts.

              One notorious "deductive" leap involves flight 77, which on 9/11 ended up crashing into the Pentagon. There are photos of the impact of the "object" -- i.e., the Boeing 757, flight 77 -- that seem to show the sort of hole a missile might make. Ergo, the nuts assert, it WAS a missile and a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon. As regards the hole, my brother Andrew -- writing a book about Rumsfeld and the DoD during his tenure -- has seen photos taken within 30 minutes of Pentagon impact clearly showing outline of entire plane including wings. This was visible momentarily when the smoke blew away

              And if it was a missile, what happened to the 757? Did the conspirators shoot it down somewhere else, or force it down and then kill the passengers? Why plan to demolish the towers with pre-placed explosives if your conspiracy includes control of the two planes that hit them. Why bother with the planes at all. Why blame Osama if your fall guy is Saddam Hussein? Why involve the Israeli "art students".

              The nuts simultaneously credit their targets – the Bush-Cheney "conspirators" -- with superhuman ingenuity and grotesque carelessness. In Webster Griffin Tarpley's book "9/11 Synthetic Terror Made in USA" he writes that "in an interview with Parade magazine, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld also referred to the object which hit the Pentagon as a missile'. Was this a Freudian slip by the loquacious defense chief?" (And, a nut might add, is it mere coincidence that Webster Griffin Tarpley shares one of his names with David Ray Griffin?

              The demolition scenario is classic who-moved-the-stonery. The WTC towers didn't fall down because they were badly built as a consequence of corruption, incompetence, regulatory evasions by the Port Authority, and because they were struck by huge planes loaded with jet fuel. No, they fell because Dick Cheney's agents methodically planted demolition charges in the preceding days. It was a conspiracy of thousands, all of whom –- party to mass murder –- have held their tongues ever since. The "conspiracy" is always open-ended as to the number of conspirators, widening steadily to include all the people involved in the execution and cover-up of the demolition of the Towers and the onsslaujght on the Pentagon, from the teams acquiring the explosives and themissile, inserting the explosives in the relevant floors of three vast buildings, (moving day after day among the unsuspecting office workers), then on 9/11 activating the detonators.

              Subsequently the conspiracy includes the disposers of the steel and rubble, the waste recyclers in Staten Island and perhaps even the Chinese who took the salvaged incriminating metal for use in the Three Gorges dam, where it will submerged in water and concretye for ever. Tens of thousands of people, all silent as the tomb to this day.

              Of course the buildings didn't suddenly fall at a speed inexplicable in terms of physics unless caused by carefully pre-placed explosives, detonated by the ruthless Bush-Cheney operatives. High grade steel can bend disastrously under extreme heat. People inside who survived the collapse didn't hear a series of explosions. As discussed in Wayne Barrett and Dan Collin's excellent book Grand Illusion, about Rudy Giuliani and 9/11, helicopter pilots radioed warnings nine minutes before the final collapse that the South Tower might well go down and, repeatedly, as much as 25 minutes before the North Tower's fall.

              What Barrett and Collins brilliantly show are the actual corrupt conspiracies on Giuliani's watch: the favoritism to Motorola which saddled the firemen with radios that didn't work; the ability of the Port Authority to skimp on fire protection, the mayor's catastrophic failure in the years before 9/11/2001 to organize an effective unified emergency command that would have meant that cops and firemen could have communicated; that many firemen wouldn't have unnecessarily entered the Towers; that people in the Towers wouldn't have been told by 911 emergency operators to stay in place; and that firemen could have heard the helicopter warnings and the final Mayday messages that prompted most of the NYPD men to flee the Towers.

              That's the real political world, in which Giuliani and others have never been held accountable. The nuts disdain the real world because, like much of the left and liberal sectors, they have promoted Bush, Cheney and the Neo-Cons to an elevated status as the Arch Demons of American history, instead of being just one more team running the American empire, a team of more than usual stupidity and incompetence (characteristics I personally favor in imperial leaders.) The Conspiracy Nuts have combined to produce a huge distraction, just as Danny Sheehan did with his Complaint, that mesmerized and distracted much of the Nicaraguan Solidarity Movement in the 1980s, and which finally collapsed in a Florida courtroom almost as quickly as the Towers.

              * Footnote: I should add that one particular conspiracy nut, seeing that Roosevelt's grandson Ford – a schoolteacher in Los Angeles – was for a while, some years ago, on the board of CounterPunch's parent non-profit, the Institute for the Advancement of Journalistic Clarity – wrote an enormous onslaught on CounterPunch a while ago, "proving" to his own satisfaction that CounterPunch was a pawn of the Democratic Party, the CIA and kindred darker forces. I suppose the fact that CounterPunch attacked the Democratic Party and the CIA on a weekly basis was just one more example of our cunning in deflecting suspicion away from our true sponsors. The fact that from time to time that we also quite regularly attacked FDR – and posited his foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor – should again be taken as evidence of our cunning in deflecting suspicion away from Ford's supervisory roile in our affairs. In fact we'd put Ford on the board in the hopes (vain, as they turned out to be) that he would persuade film stars to give CounterPunch money.
              I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

              "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

              "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

              Comment


              • Why do you overlook the obvious? What agenda are you really pushing here?
                That's what I'd like to know too, although I have my suspicions.


                Name any other major investigation of an incident like this. You can't, it doesn't exist.
                We had a fire once at a church in a nearby town. Good investigation technique would be to enter the burned out church and finish the invest. However, the building was SO unstable that it wasn't prudent to do that.

                I guess that you could say the investigation didn't follow these mythical standards that you keep referencing to. However, it was the 100% right thing to do for THAT incident.
                Excellent points. Haven't seen them mentioned before.

                Comment


                • Ok, I read this bs thread just for the mind boggling statements I hear here. I have a question to the people who call for a new investigation or who called it a conspiracy and to the people who said it was a crime scene. Now the two towers that came down and the rubble that happened after the collapse were we to say NO Nobody touch anything this is a crime scene we have to document and test everything nothing is allowed to leave the scene ? I mean it was a rescue and later a recovery incident looking for people and remains or am I completely wrong ? And even though you know Trade 7 was coming down because of the fire you still say it was where explosives were used ? yeah because that makes sense right ?

                  ~sighs~ Sometimes I don't know if these people really have a brain.
                  Rob

                  Comment


                  • 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.
                    Asshat: You do know how much damage was caused when 7 was struck by tons of debris? You do know how long the fires raged after firefighters were pulled out of the building? You do know the fire department and others knew 7 was going to collapse and said as much? You do know they even monitored it with a transit, and knew how much the building was leaning?
                    Of course you do; but you're an asshat. Your serial dumbassery is astounding.
                    Last edited by ThNozzleman; 04-15-2009, 10:25 PM.
                    Member IACOJ

                    Comment


                    • 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.
                      Name them. If you don't name them, I will assume that you made it up.
                      PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

                      Comment


                      • Serial dumbassery?

                        As mad as you are, you had to be chuckling when you wrote that.
                        PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

                        Comment


                        • As mad as you are, you had to be chuckling when you wrote that.
                          Yeah...but it was brief. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm trying to get the dog to come out from underneath the bed.
                          Member IACOJ

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by ThNozzleman View Post
                            Yeah...but it was brief. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm trying to get the dog to come out from underneath the bed.
                            Now that right there is funny! And sad, as it reminds of my best friend who had to be put down 2 months ago and would frequenctly skulk out of the room when I started yelling at the ball game on the TV.

                            Anyway...

                            What a sad and scary world these folks live in, to believe these far-fetched "world is out to get you" things.

                            September 11th was scary enough as it was, to add this bizarre twist to it? I don't know.

                            Is it gullibility? Is it a bizarre world view? Is it some organic issue with their brains?

                            I don't know. But how sad for them.

                            .
                            I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

                            "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

                            "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

                            Comment


                            • I think we should blame it on Starkwood.
                              PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
                                I think we should blame it on Starkwood.
                                Don't worry, George.... Jack will sort out this mess.
                                ‎"The education of a firefighter and the continued education of a firefighter is what makes "real" firefighters. Continuous skill development is the core of progressive firefighting. We learn by doing and doing it again and again, both on the training ground and the fireground."
                                Lt. Ray McCormack, FDNY

                                Comment

                                300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

                                Collapse

                                Upper 300x250

                                Collapse

                                Taboola

                                Collapse

                                Leader

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X