Dagget

Where are the quotes taken out of context.

You quote part of Lieutenant Brian Becker’s oral testimony to the FDNY.

… after that , but that is not as accurate in my mind, that I'd say we were in the 30th or 31st, 32nd Floor, or something like that , and a few of the guys were lying wiped out on the floor , you know, taking a break with their masks off and lying in the hallway when there was a very loud roaring sound and a very loud explosion, and the -- it felt like there was an explosion above us, and I had a momentary concern that our building was collapsing. Looking up, guys were diving in to the stairway, and then it was like -- everybody was very scared by then. I'm talking the firemen, and then we were very worried about what was going on. We didn't know, but apparently that was the other building falling
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110019.PDF

I have shown you where the "absolute proof" people have deliberately lied to make things look the way they want. I have showed you McQueens quote where he acknowledges that all of the fireman (bar Schroeder) whose quotes he uses to make a case for explosives, don’t accept his version. I have shown above that at least one ( I didn’t have time to look for anymore) of these quotes are used in a selective manner which changes the intention of the speaker.

You say >> “If they have been misrepresented, why haven't any of them come forward to say this is the case”

How do you know they haven’t? How do you know if they know what McQueen is doing with their words? It is your job to show us that these people actually believe the nonsense you and the conspiracists are peddling.

You say >> “When you quote from that video on this forum I will respond.”

I already did. "Of the 31 first responders (fireman and the like) who used the word ‘bomb’, 30 are referring to the collapse of the buildings", http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=2hBDXB6cifo

tbc

CONT,

Orange flames

For starters I’ve already shown you that the makers of the clip you are referring to have deliberately manipulated images to mislead the viewer. So if you don't mind we won't be using ANY of their material. Here is a close up of the collapse of wtc1. http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=Cz6VxxVdXuA

If you look at it closely, what you will see is that the building is already moving well before we see the orange flames shoot out. The floors at the impact site were thoroughly on fire. When the 30 stories above the collapse point start coming down, where does the fire go? Of course it goes in the only directions it can, which is out, or down. Clearly the flames shooting out (ala explosions) are not the cause of the collapse.

You say >> “On top of that, we have the cover-up of the evidence of the crime, including the astonishingly fast removal of the wreckage of WTC7”

What? The fast removal of debris is evidence that the buildings were demolished? Really?

You say >> “On top of that we had the extraordinary coincidence on the same day, of three unprecedented engineering failures that have never occurred before and have never occurred since”

On the same day we had the unprecendented occurrences of two massive jets full of fuel flying into these building as 700km/h. When these buildings collapsed they rained their approximately 1,000,000 tonnes of concrete and steel on the surrounding buildings and the streets below.

Richard Branaciski >> “They ...were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. ”

Where is the 54,000,000 to 1 quote please? Because it is flat out ridiculous.

Paul.L wrote, "For starters I’ve already shown you that the makers of the clip you are referring to have deliberately manipulated images to mislead the viewer. ..."

You haven't shown anything of the sort.

The film clip "9/11 Debunked: WTC Accounts of Bombs & Explosions Explained" at http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=2hBDXB6cifo that you say 'proves' deliberate manipulation lasts all of 14 seconds and consists of 4 discontiguous parts with respective lengths 3 seconds, 3 seconds, 2 seconds and 6 seconds.

The fact that they have not shown more of the clip that they claim was manipulated makes me more than a little suspicious.

In contrast, the clip in "9/11: Total Proof That Bombs Were Planted In The Buildings!" at http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw lasted 30 seconds and was contiguous.

Given the near certainty that such misuse of a video clip would be detected I think that, until some more substantial evidence is produced, we can assume that there is a very high likelihood that it was an honest mistake.

In any case, what you have accused them of seems no more dishonest to me than your own debating techniques on this forum, including these clearly false statements:

"Thats it. Statements of surprise ...", "All you have presented so far is ...", etc.

Paul.L continued, "... So if you don't mind we won't be using ANY of their material. ..."

It seems to me that you will use any excuse to avoid confronting evidence that conflicts with your case. This is far from the first that you have chosen to ignore.

If any of the rest of that broadcast had been doctored in any way I am pretty sure we would have heard about it by now.Whilst I grant your explanation of fire having been pushed down seem superficially plausible, it strikes me as odd that the timing of the orange flash precedes so neatly the explosive like expansion of the mass of the building material. The commentary also includes the words, "we saw just some kind of explosion"

(tobecontinued)

Dagget,

You say >> “Whilst I grant your explanation of fire having been pushed down seem superficially plausible

Superficially plausible? Please tell me how it is substantially implausible?

You say >> it strikes me as odd that the timing of the orange flash precedes so neatly the explosive like expansion of the mass of the building material”

Sorry What? The “orange flash” precedes the expulsion of the building debris, because they are caused by the same thing, the building collapsing.

Clearly the building is moving well before the orange flash. Please tell me how a so called “explosion” which is supposed to cause the collapse, isn’t visible until well after the collapse has begun? Have a look at an actual demolition and note that you see the explosive flashes BEFORE the building starts to move.

There is NO explosive like expansion. Explosions eject material FAR FAR faster than that ejected by the building collapse. I have yet to see any of the truth sites point out the “orange flash” as evidence of demolition, because it is OBVIOUS to all but the determinedly obtuse, that the 80,000 tonnes of steel and concrete had to push the fire somewhere.

You say >> If any of the rest of that broadcast had been doctored in any way I am pretty sure we would have heard about it by now”

WHAT? That’s your basis for trusting what these people say? Go to the original material yourself and check it out.

You are apologising for the LIARS of the so called “truth movement” even after claiming you wouldn’t. Has it occurred to you yet that many of the people behind the “truth movement” are making a lot of money from this conspiracy? Books, tshirts, merchandise etc.

Are you seriously suggesting that in their POLEMIC designed to convince the half-smart, they accidentally included a clip which purports to show their point? Really?

You just don’t want to believe it Dagget. I show you a lie and you pretend it doesn’t exist. Are you denying that the clip shown took place at Stuyvesant high school?

Paul.L wrote, "Superficially plausible? Please tell me how it is substantially implausible?"

See "Concrete Pulverization - Twin Towers' Concrete Turned to Dust in Mid-Air" at http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/concrete.html

"Mushrooming Tops - The Twin Towers' Tops Mushroomed As They Fell" at http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/mushrooming.html

"Vast Volumes of Dust - Dust From Collapses Expanded to Many Times The Towers' Volumes" at http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/dust.html

It concludes: "Such behavior clearly indicates the input of huge quantities of heat far in excess of what the friction of a gravity-driven collapse could produce."

"Volume of Dust - Volume of Dust Clouds Proves Demolition" at http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/proofs/volume.html

---

I also commend the 9.31 minute broadcast "9/11 Official Pancake Theory Debunked" at http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=_6KRJ4x82L0&feature=related

To remind others, the "Pancake Theory" is what Paul.L offered above as his explanation of how the two towers were able to collapse to dust without any explosives having been used. To paraphrase Stephen Jones, you can't have it both ways. If the floors collapsed solidly on top of each other you would expect to find a solid pile of floors on the ground and a huge solid spindle in the middle, whether erect or having toppled over to one side.

You would not expect a pile of dust.

---

Your near-hysterical focus on the inclusion of material allegedly from the Stuyvesant school bomb hoax in that broadcast seems to be an attempt to distract the attention of others from the gaping holes in your own case and from the vastly greater deception by those who are pushing the Official Conspiracy Theory, including your own. I have already dealt with this question and am not going to discuss it further.

---

Paul.L wrote, "Where is the 54,000,000 to 1 quote please? Because it is flat out ridiculous."

Why is it ridiculous?

So, what is your own figure for likelihood of the complete failure of the world's most formidable air defence system on that day?

Barrie Zwicker cited the figure from the 9/11 Commision Report it in his documentary "The Great Conspiracy" at http://www.greatconspiracy.ca/tgc.html http://www.greatconspiracy.ca/pdfs/TGC_transcript_GOIssue9.pdf.

(continuedfromabove)

Paul.L is clearly clutching at straws in his claims that the testimony of firefighters has been taken out of context. He has only attempted to demonstrate that one was out of context and ignored the rest. Somehow, omission of the word 'bomb' in all of those eyewitness accounts, which clearly attest to the occurrence of explosions not accounted for in the official account, somehow proves that nobody believed that bombs were planted. No corroborating evidence fro this has been provided.

Presumably Paul.L would also insist that those four firemen I referred to above who referred to 'detonators' and did not use the word 'bomb' also don't believe that bombs were planted.

In regard to the testimony of Lieutenant Brian Becker, Graeme MacQueen wrote, "I am interested, in this paper, in direct perception and immediate interpretation. I want to know what witnesses saw, heard and thought on 9/11 at the scene of the crime."

The inclusion Lieutenant Brian Becker's words:

"... and a few of the guys were lying wiped out on the floor, you know, taking a break with their masks off and lying in the hallway when there was a very loud roaring sound and a very loud explosion, and the -- it felt like there was an explosion above us, ..."

... in the way that they were included was clearly appropriate, even if he subsequently said, in the light of a very incomplete understanding of the events of that day:

"We didn't know, but apparently that was the other building falling."

It seems more likely to me that what Lieutenant Brian Becker had heard was indeed an explosion within the building he was in and I expect that he would agree with me. Certainly, he has not since come forward to complain of having been misrepresented by Graeme MacQueen as far as I am aware.

As I wrote, this is the only testimony that Paul.L has attempted to demonstrate was out of context. He has been silent on nearly all the rest.

Furthermore, if you had read on, you would have read these words:

(tobecontinued)