That’s exactly what you wrote. And I notice you haven’t explained how the explosives got into the building or how all the equipment survived the plane impact, and you haven’t explained the discrepanies between the WTC collapse and actual demolitions.
Except the original eyewitness account of William Rodriguez - before speaking to Alex Jones and attempting to sue the Bush Administration - was that his maintenance co-worker got burned by a fireball in the sub-basement service elevator shaft.
I’m not the one misquoting people here, and and I don’t really agree if NYPD agrees with me or not in 2012, almost 11 years later and everything that has happened since.
I provided my links to back up why some of the things that happened on that day could be seen as evidence of demolition.
You can dismiss them, attack them and yes misquote me but they still stand.
However you try to contort it, you are using quotes (out of context) from the FDNY to support to your claims of a wired building. Even with the weasel words you use the implication you are making is that the experience and expertise of the FDNY supports your allegations. That is wrong however you try to slip out of it.
Do the lurkers support you in email?
Yes, you are. Or rather the people whose videos you have linked to did so.
They didn’t agree with you in 2006, when the troofer movement was at its peak.
But they are not, they are simply comments about explosions and loud noises that are not to be unexpected in a large building fire.
No. They most certainly do not.
And lots of PMs, I’m sure.
Here’s one I started in 2008 when the NIST report on the collapse of WTC7 came out.
For split p&j, I would recommend reading that thread (and I’ll see if I can dig up some of the others). Many, many, many (MANY!) of the same arguments have been raised, examined and thoroughly debunked over and over and over again. You will find a lot of that stuff in the NIST report (linked in the very first post of that thread) and the multiple 9/11 threads we have done here.
And I’ll ask you the same question I’ve asked all the other folks who say it looks like controlled demolitions, or that “buildings don’t collapse that way”, etc - what is your education or work experience in any related field that lets you make that statement?
For example, do you do heavy construction, work in explosive demolition, have a background in structural engineering, architecture or any other related area? I’ve got a BS and MS in structural engineering with a heavy emphasis on steel and concrete engineering, from one of the top CE schools in the country.
No further questions, Your Honor.
I just quoted myself. Where in this do I say FDNY saw the buildings were wired.
Remember this post was part of a response where some claimed that none of the signs of controlled demolition were present, such as explosions, light flashes ect.
In fact, eyewitnesses saw and heard all these things, yes including the NYFD, according to the video shot on the same day
Also, I don’t have to account for anything. I don’t have, nor do I need an alternate theory for this conspiracy.
I can, however, draw my own conclusions. The offical story is complete BS.
The last sentence indicates that based on FDNY witnesses, you concluded the building was wired for explosives.
Did you use the exact word “see” or “saw” or any variant? No, but that’s mere pedantry. Maybe that wasn’t your intent. But that’s on you, not on everybody else for reading the words you put down, rather than reading your mind.
Engage in semantics arguments if you want, but you’re not making any sort of case for a controlled demolition in any case.
My conclusion - so are all your “arguments.”
Yes of course, the classic argument. Kind of like if your not a solider, you can’t comment on war.
Not really suprised by this.
Can you show the a video of a controlled demolition where the building collapsed from the top down?
Welcome to the club.
To be fair, he technically isn’t saying that the FDNY reported that the buildings were wired for explosives, but he’s relying heavily on hand waving and insinuation to imply that his sources are unimpeachable and that given what they reported, there’s no other conclusion but that the buildings were wired for explosives.
The problems with that include:
[ul]
[li]No one at in the FDNY said what he thinks they said[/li][li]What the members of the FDNY actually said goes against the idea of any explosives in the buildings[/li][li]Even if members of the FDNY said what he thinks they said (and they didn’t), it wouldn’t support the idea that the buildings were wired for explosives[/li][li]All the other evidence is unanimous that explosives couldn’t have been involved[/li][/ul]
So, I’ll give him a .5/10 for effort. At least he used capital letters and punctuation.
That’s an argument about experience, not technical expertise. And not that it matters much, but this excuse would have been more effective if you’d trotted it out a couple of pages ago instead of waiting until after people debunked your comments about the collapse resembling explosive demolition or requiring explosives on every level.
You can comment on it. Doesn’t make you right. If I want treatises and critiques of military strategy, I’m going to the generals and not the grunts. If the generals all say the same thing, you need some firm evidence to contradict it.
The point is that all the people with any actual expertise contradict your arguments. Extraordinary claims, i.e. claims that contradict what all the experts say, require extraordinary evidence.
Thing is, you aren’t talking like ‘just a non-soldier commenting on war’, you’re talking like a wannabee Green Beret who says he would have solved the war Iraq using ninja powers and moves he learned by playing Modern Warfare 3.
You don’t have to but your accounting for at least the following would go a long way toward demonstrating that you’ve considered everything in good faith rather than just whatever you think happens to agree with you.
..and the expertise to know what such evidence should look like.