Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Firefightersfor9-11truth.org

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

  • That pretty much sums it up perfectly.

    Originally posted by MattyS View Post
    Anyone remember Pat Tillman, the NFL'er turned Ranger that was killed 04/22/04? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Tillman

    His family was told he was killed engaged in combat with enemy forces. They concluded they were being lied to, and pushed and pushed until the US Congress officially launched an investigation. That by all accounts is still going on today.

    How the f*** does it relate to this thread?

    I just don't understand how you can NOT be a brother if a motive of truth seeking is to honor those deceased 343.

    How can you e-bomb a man and imply or tell him he is not a brother?

    Is the Tillman family not true family for seeking the truth about their brother in arms, friend, son, brother,..husband?

    Would it not be a disservice, a dishonor to their name, their memory, their legacy..their FAMILIES to NOT find out what happened to their loved ones?

    I don't believe all these theories. But a BMA label just because of questioning the accepted answer...?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by ChiefKN View Post
      Keep blathering... you are scoring no points with your obscure off beat references.
      In this case, a vanity "pay-for-play" rag, resembling a true peer-reviewed scientific journal the same way Weekly World News resembles the Washington Post, featuring a deranged and discredited physicist best known for pushing cold fusion (remember that?) (This leading light of the twoofers also identified a chunk of concrete with rebar sticking out as some sort of exotic metal slag. Heh heh.)
      Originally posted by ChiefKN View Post
      The conspiracy it would take to pull off something like you reference is mind-boggling in it's complexity and scope.

      It's just not a rational thought. But don't let that stop you.
      It won't; there will be a never-ending trickle of mindlessly regurgitated Important Discoveries Proving Beyond A Doubt that it was bombs, or thermite, or super-nano-thermite painted onto the structure when it was built, or nuclear weapons, or directed-energy weapons, or artificial earthquakes, and don't forget that it wasn't really an airliner that hit the Pentagon. Meanwhile, those claiming to "honor" the 343 want you to know that WTC 7 really wasn't damaged very much and only had a few isolated fires. And so on and so on.

      The tinfoil hat brigade will always be with us, but their "movement" will never amount to more than a handful of committed crackpots and useful idiots ready to form the latest Janitors for 9/11 Twoof club which will be laughed at by the vast majority of experts - pilots, architects, engineers, and now firefighters. In a generation they will simply be indistinguishable from the low-level noise of Moon landing deniers, JFK assassination groupies, and the like.
      Last edited by sts060; 04-10-2009, 09:42 AM. Reason: minor grammar fix

      Comment


      • This crap is getting press now, including the website.

        Heated Controversy
        Do firefighters believe 9/11 conspiracy theories?
        By Christopher Beam
        Posted Wednesday, April 8, 2009, at 5:18 PM ET
        Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2215703

        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In the new season of the FX drama Rescue Me, firefighter Franco Rivera espouses the belief that 9/11 was "an inside job." According to a Sunday New York Times article, the show's writers added this assertion because actor Daniel Sunjata is a "truther"; but the real firefighters on set—who work as script advisers—were offended by his allegations. This got the Explainer wondering: Do any firefighters believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories?

        Yes. There's no evidence that firefighters buy into 9/11 conspiracy theories at higher rates than the rest of the population. (A 2007 Zogby poll found that 26 percent of Americans believe the government "let it happen." A 2006 Scripps-Howard poll found it was more than a third.) But some firemen do believe the government was behind 9/11 and use their status as first responders to draw attention to their statements.

        The most common conspiracy theory held by firefighters is that the Twin Towers—as well as a third building, 7 World Trade Center—collapsed not because planes crashed into them but due to a "controlled demolition." On Sept. 11, an NBC reporter quoted New York Fire Department Chief of Safety Albert Turi as saying he believed there were explosives planted in one of the towers. After the attacks, the New York Fire Department interviewed firefighters to create an oral history of 9/11. These tapes—which were not released until 2005—contain numerous references to explosions heard just before the buildings fell. Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, a Web site started in 2008, says the government destroyed evidence that 7 World Trade Center was blown up and hosts a petition asking Congress to look into the possibility that "exotic accelerants" destroyed the buildings. (The National Institute of Standards and Technology, which investigated the collapse of 7 World Trade Center, concluded that "blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.")

        Another common theory is that federal agents found three of the planes' four black boxes and then hid or destroyed them because they contained incriminating evidence. Nicholas DeMasi, a firefighter formerly with Engine Company 261 in Queens, was quoted in a 2003 book saying that he was there when federal agents made the discovery. Another first responder corroborated his account. Although his allegations are contradicted by The 9/11 Commission Report, which says the boxes were never found, many truthers choose to believe there was a cover-up.

        Do other professions marshal their own expertise to poke holes in the official story? Absolutely. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth point to the physics of the towers' collapse—its "free fall" pace, the "lateral ejection" of steel, the "mid-air pulverization of concrete"—as evidence that they could not have fallen exclusively because of the planes' impact. Pilots for 9/11 Truth have their own set of theories that focus on the planes' black boxes and flight paths, arguing, for example, that the hijackers of American Airlines Flight 77 would have had to perform an extremely difficult aerial maneuver to hit the Pentagon where they did. Lawyers for 9/11 Truth conclude that the 9/11 Commission investigation was inadequate. There's also Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice (not to be confused with its rival, Scholars for 9/11 Truth), which tackles scientific aspects of the towers' collapse, such as the alleged residue of explosive materials like thermate in the dust at Ground Zero. One notable group that does not have its own 9/11 truth group is the police force.

        Got a question about today's news? Ask the Explainer.

        Explainer thanks Mike Berger of 911Truth.org, Mark Fenster of University of Florida, Erik Lawyer of Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, and Barrie Zwicker.

        Christopher Beam is a Slate political reporter.

        Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2215703

        Comment


        • That is the sort of thing I feared, and that is precisely why we have to stand up for the truth -- the real truth.

          Here is a portion of what I e-mailed to Christopher Beam:

          I would love to post a comment on your story, “heated Controversy,” but I am unable to do so because of a glitch in my browser or a problem with your site.

          What I will tell you – and Slate readers when I am able to post – there is no controversy among firefighters. Only a tiny fraction buy the lunacy. You mentioned the website, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth. Have you taken a look at the membership and traffic numbers? They are almost non-existent. It is a cookie cutter conspiracy site; there are similar sites for engineers and pilots, all created to give the uninitiated to conspiracy tactics the impression that the experts believe the lies.


          I then tossed in a link to this thread.

          Comment


          • Can any of you please answer any of these questions in a professional manner?

            I understand your anger and frustration over those who question 9/11. I had it too over 1 year ago. I noticed when my emotion died down a little, and I actually looked at the evidence and the way the investigation was conducted, I was faced with some things I couldn’t deny.
            Trust me, there are a lot of eyes on this thread already- I’ve received numerous emails and phone calls from it. Mr. Beam already has the thread. What so many have noticed is the fact that nobody here will answer any of these questions:

            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?
            Then we have from NIST’s website “Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
            …In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses.”
            Well, apparently they didn’t look for witness reports too hard: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbbZE...om=PL&index=20

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxycV...layer_embedded

            From NIST’s own website Frequently Asked Questions: “Your entire investigation included no physical evidence. How can you be so sure you know what happened?
            In general, much less evidence existed for WTC 7 than for the two WTC towers….”
            Can anybody provide any National Standards or federal evidence laws that allow for the destruction of evidence before the investigation? Can you name any other major investigation in U.S. fire history, other than 9/11 WTC 7, that was conducted using NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE?


            How does demanding an investigation of the events that caused the death of so many of our Brothers follow basic National Standards dishonor them?

            Can any of you please answer any of these questions in a professional manner?

            Thank you,
            Erik Lawyer

            "The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is."
            Winston Churchill

            Comment


            • I understand your anger and frustration over those who question 9/11. I had it too over 1 year ago. I noticed when my emotion died down a little, and I actually looked at the evidence and the way the investigation was conducted, I was faced with some things I couldn’t deny.
              Your overlooking the reams of evidence proving what happened in order to cling to a relatively few crackpot notions that are ridiculous at best is the very definition of denial. A few puffs of smoke and inconsistant stories of people terrified out of their minds just doesn't cut it. There isn't one single silly idea you've dragged in here that hasn't been totally put to rest by numerous experts.
              Go away.
              Member IACOJ

              Comment


              • Originally posted by koolaid1 View Post
                Can any of you please answer any of these questions in a professional manner?

                Thank you,
                Erik Lawyer

                "The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is."
                Winston Churchill
                Scroll up... we've addressed your idiotic and incomplete analysis.

                Answer this question. How did a couple of thousand people miss all the obvious evidence of "explosions"???

                Correction, tens of thousands. Yet you only find a half dozen "witnesses"? C'mon dude, you're grasping at straws.

                Another thing... you use eyewitness accounts from early on in the incident. That's really not a very scientific point of view.

                We were also told there were other planes coming...that wmd were involved... lots of RUMORs early on.

                As for the sounds of explosions. That has been debunked. Do some googling, plenty of good explanations that explain it.

                You really offer no credible reasons to believe any of your claims.

                Why do you want this to be true?
                Last edited by ChiefKN; 04-11-2009, 12:26 AM.
                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


                • Answer this question. How did a couple of thousand people miss all the obvious evidence of "explosions"???
                  How did I miss the obvious evidence of "explosions"???
                  PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
                    How did I miss the obvious evidence of "explosions"???
                    That's because they used thermite, or thermate, or super-nano-thermite (the story keeps changing), which of course, doesn't make loud explosions. Except that, of course, every loud noise was an explosion, and every explosion was due to a bomb, so there were high explosives. Got it?

                    It is said that to keep two mutually contradictory ideas in one's head is a sign of intelligence. After reading yet another set of mindlessly regurgitated twoofer claims (including the classic WTC 7 was not significantly damaged or burning), I no longer believe this.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
                      How did I miss the obvious evidence of "explosions"???
                      You're clearly one of "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


                      • Originally posted by sts060 View Post
                        That's because they used thermite, or thermate, or super-nano-thermite (the story keeps changing), which of course, doesn't make loud explosions. Except that, of course, every loud noise was an explosion, and every explosion was due to a bomb, so there were high explosives. Got it?

                        It is said that to keep two mutually contradictory ideas in one's head is a sign of intelligence. After reading yet another set of mindlessly regurgitated twoofer claims (including the classic WTC 7 was not significantly damaged or burning), I no longer believe this.
                        Thermite? Gee. I never thought of it. I've never been trained on that before?
                        PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
                          How did I miss the obvious evidence of "explosions"???
                          Because you were there George. You were emotionally distraught, and all your powers of observation, including those powers of observation you have highly tuned through years of being a detective, were rendered useless by your emotional distress. C'mon any third-rate tinfoil hat wearer knows this.
                          "Loyalty Above all Else. Except Honor."

                          Comment


                          • Hello again gentlemen,

                            I just recently became aware that I finally have the ability to post to the forums here without a 24 - 48 hour delay for the post to actually hit the board. Thanks Mods! Now that the playing field has been leveled, the debate can really get started! I hope everyone can trust that my delay in posting a second time was not because I feared being exposed to the name calling Erik has dealt with, nor was it because I found the tractor pull discussion too challenging.

                            I see that many of you still choose to end your posts with a call for the truth movement posters to "Go Away", or that this topic "makes you sick", etc. I know I'm being redundant, but it apparently is appropriate to again point out that this topic was started by an anonymous member of this board (Lt Tony) in Erik’s absence. In fact, Erik was not even a member of these forums when this thread was started. It is also true that he became a member of this forum specifically to defend himself here. You guys started this thread, we are just here to respond. You kicked this hornet’s nest, not us. Now that our ability to post in a timely fashion is finally on par with yours, the last thing that's going to happen is for us to just "go away" my friends.

                            Originally posted by FWDbuff
                            Oh boy.....Let me get some popcorn.......This is going to be one hell of a show.
                            Buff, it seems like your man Mr. Wendt let us all down. There really hasn't been much of a show has there?. Mr. Wendt may be a “somebody” in the world of fire investigation, but he apparently has an aversion to actually spending enough time at the keyboard to articulate an intelligent thought on this matter. All I have seen from him is a tendency to resort to name calling, and some evidence that he understands html well enough to post his very simple thoughts IN REALLY BIG FONT SO HE CAN SCREAM LIKE A 15 YEAR OLD.

                            In fact, in this post...

                            Originally posted by georgewendtcfi
                            Lou, you're making a big mistake trying to debate this fool. That is what they thrive on.
                            He actually goes as far as to encourage the original poster from engaging in any meaningful debate! "Stay away from the facts Lou! These maniacs thrive on the facts! And we both know those don't hold up under scrutiny!"

                            Mr. Wendt has yet to seriously address any of Erik Lawyer’s questions, and in my estimation he has embarrassed himself here on this forum, just as the following individual has...


                            Originally posted by eaglesrule1024
                            This whole thread is BS. All I can keep coming up with is STFU. If you were not there than STFU don't come looking for something that's not there. If you are looking for something to try and get people's minds thinking or put idea's out in peoples heads over this your a POS Plain and simple.
                            All you can come up with is a couple of texting acronyms? If that is really the case then kill your TV immediately, stop brushing with flouride toothpaste, begin taking Ginkgo Biloba to increase the blood flow to your brain, go on a mental diet of non-fiction (yes, non-fiction books, silly) for at least 1 year, and take a creative writing course at your local community college. When you're done with all that come back and join the debate.

                            Originally posted by LtTony
                            That is the sort of thing I feared, and that is precisely why we have to stand up for the truth -- the real truth.
                            Hey Lieut, if you're interested in "standing up for the truth" (well... the antithesis of the truth anyway), you might start by putting a name to your posts. Then we might all have some idea if you are really even a firefighter.

                            Originally posted by LtTony
                            ... we - the country as a whole - have essentially ignored it too long. Time to stand up to the lies, as FFs have done earlier. The twist now is that an alleged firefighter is spouting off on the internet.

                            ...you should ask yourself who is perpetuating these lies, and for what purpose? Yes, there are genuinely sincere yet confused folks promoting the BS. But most loathe you and I, and our country. There are not out for our best interests.
                            The "alleged firefighter" who is exercising his right of free speech by posting a website has chosen to post his full name and place of employment. This is far more than you have done my anonymous friend.

                            In spite of the fact that I have no respect for you or your flimsy arguments, I do understand your perception that those who question the events of 9-11 must be “hate America first” liberals, or some other type of enemy of America, because I used to think that. You might be surprised to learn that I used to be a Republican, then during the eight years of Bush-Cheney I was driven to Libertarianism, and upon my "awakening" I extricated my beliefs from the 'False Left-Right Political Paradigm' entirely. For those who don't know what that is; the first chapter in Ron Paul's 'Revolution' book - "The False Choices Of American Politics" explains it pretty nicely.

                            The reality is that those who have experienced the “political awakening” that led them to the truth movement have come from both sides of the ‘False left right political fence’. The reality is that it is men who dare to question their government who act as agents for the preservation of liberty, not those who mindlessly accept whatever answers their government gives them.

                            The assertion that it is somehow an unhealthy thing for the country when individuals question the events of 9-11 is, in my view, the achilles heel of your entire argument. You see, even if the "9-11 truthers" are 100% wrong in their claim that the 9-11 attacks were an inside job, their arguments are still a healthy thing for the continued liberty of this country. They are still completely justified in making these arguments.

                            The idea that questioning the events of 9-11 somehow discredits those who lost their lives that day is illogical and absurd. You see; Asking for justice when justice is not needed does the deceased no disservice, but being complacent when the truth cries out for justice does them a huge disservice.

                            The 9-11 attacks were a springboard for the largest series of attacks on our liberty that has ever occurred in modern times. Our constitution has been dismantled and ignored. We began a war with Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with the attacks, and that just happens to also be an oil rich country (a detail of much interest to Bush-Cheney, and all their "military industrial complex" cohorts). Our stated objectives for invading Iraq (WMD's) were nonsensical in the first place, and turned out to be totally false.

                            To examine the events surrounding 9-11 from a purely "follow the money", cui bono, standpoint (which we have to do because the evidence was DESTROYED), 9-11 is a no-brainer.

                            "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."
                            Thomas Jefferson

                            "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                            William Pitt

                            "America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
                            Abraham Lincoln
                            Lance Fisher
                            Seattle Fire Department
                            Station #28
                            Ladder 12

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by ThNozzleman View Post
                              Your overlooking the reams of evidence proving what happened in order to cling to a relatively few crackpot notions that are ridiculous at best is the very definition of denial.
                              Your sentence structure is absolutely horrible, but I do understand what you are trying to say here, and your logic is totally flawed. We are not overlooking "reams of evidence" that supposedly "prove" what happened. You see, there are no "reams of evidence" to overlook because the evidence was destroyed. NIST's investigation is a hypothesis. That is the problem my friend!

                              NIST's own website admits that their investigation included no physical evidence! In fact, NIST's website contradicts it's own logic.

                              Here NIST addresses the fact that there were no fatalities at WTC7 -

                              Why were there no fatalities from the collapse of WTC 7?
                              Several factors contributed to the outcome of no loss of life—or serious injuries—in WTC 7...
                              Then in the very next FAQ...

                              Why didn't the investigators look at actual steel samples from WTC 7?
                              Steel samples were removed from the site before the NIST investigation began. In the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, debris was removed rapidly from the site to aid in recovery efforts and facilitate emergency responders’ efforts to work around the site. Once it was removed from the scene, the steel from WTC 7 could not be clearly identified. Unlike the pieces of steel from WTC 1 and WTC 2, which were painted red and contained distinguishing markings, WTC 7 steel did not contain such identifying characteristics.
                              NIST asserts that the WTC 7 samples were rapidly removed to aid in a recovery operation? If there were no fatalities at that site, what was being recovered? In addition, and perhaps most importantly, NIST states that; "...steel from WTC 7 could not be clearly identified. Unlike the pieces of steel from WTC 1 and WTC 2, which were painted red and contained distinguishing markings, WTC 7 steel did not contain such identifying characteristics".

                              If WTC 7 steel had no distinguishing markings, and WTC 1 & 2 steel did... wouldn't it then be a pretty simple matter to identify WTC 7 steel by the process of exclusion? I mean, all you'd have to do is find some steel that wasn't painted red had no "distinguishing markings", and voila', you'd likely have some WTC 7 steel on your hands! Right?

                              Furthermore, the notion that there was no testing done on any of the steel simply because the different steels could not be differentiated from one another is absolutely outrageous. For the love of God, just grab some steel (any steel!) and test it! If demolitions were used to assist and ensure the destruction of any of the WTC buildings, wouldn't you want to know?! Wouldn't it be your job as an investigator to find out if ANY of the steel tested positive for explosive residue, regardless of whether you knew what building it came from?

                              Originally posted by ThNozzleman View Post
                              There isn't one single idea you've dragged in here that HAS been put to rest by any of the "experts".
                              I fixed your post.
                              Lance Fisher
                              Seattle Fire Department
                              Station #28
                              Ladder 12

                              Comment


                              • ... It looks like I'm still waiting for Mod approval for my posts to hit the board (there is still a 24-48 hour delay), I was mistaken about this in my earlier post.

                                One of these days the playing field will be leveled, and then it will be "Game On".
                                Last edited by RainierTruckie; 04-14-2009, 04:36 PM. Reason: Delete redundant post
                                Lance Fisher
                                Seattle Fire Department
                                Station #28
                                Ladder 12

                                Comment

                                300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

                                Collapse

                                Upper 300x250

                                Collapse

                                Taboola

                                Collapse

                                Leader

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X