The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > 9/11 Truth

9/11 Truth

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 70
  7. 71
  8. 72
  9. Page 73
  10. 74
  11. 75
  12. 76
  13. ...
  14. 81
  15. 82
  16. 83
  17. All
Paul, I consider the points in your last post to be time wasting red herrings.

Nevertheless, if I undertake to respond to them will you respond to the points made in my last post?

And, Paul, if you feel confident that you can answer my points, you can respond today, if you like.

---

Paul wrote, "1) My point that the truther article states that Cachiolli thought he was in the North Tower after it began collapsing."

The article http://patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.html#Cacchioli) doesn't state that. It only states that Lou Cacchioli couldn't have been in the North Tower at the time it collapsed, whatever he may have thought when he made that statement.

Paul wrote, "2) My question regarding what you thought these sounds, which you insist were not the collapse, were"

I never insisted that the sounds either were or were not the collapse of the South Tower. They certainly were not the collapse of the North Tower in which Lou Caccioli was at the time. I simply can't say for sure what they were. What I do know is that the multiple explosions, together with the other three "huge explosion(s)" could not have all been explained by the collapse of the South Tower.
Posted by daggett, Tuesday, 30 December 2008 3:39:56 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dagget,

I laughed my ass of when I read this.

You said >> “Paul, I consider the points in your last post to be time wasting red herrings.”

I consider ALL of your points to be time wasting red-herrings.

You say >> Nevertheless, if I undertake to respond to them will you respond to the points made in my last post?”

Dagget you have a pattern of avoiding any of the difficult questions and only answering those things that suit you. Yet if you make 25 points in a post and I don’t respond to all of them you call me a liar or evader. Well quid pro quo, if you make an effort to answer all my questions I’ll make an effort to do the same for you.

Point 1. Why does the truther article feel the need to point out that Cachioli wasn’t in the north tower, if Cachioli was clear that wasn’t the case. This is absolutely not a red herring. This goes to the likely accuracy of the conclusions Cachioli drew from those things he didn’t directly experience. I don’t doubt what he says and what he heard. I do doubt the conclusion that explosives caused the sounds and shaking he experienced.

Lots of things could have made the sounds that Cachioli experienced. The fact that you are not prepared to say what you think caused the sounds is instructive. Do you really believe that the only thing which sounds like an explosion in a massive building fire is rigged explosives? With no real evidence that actual explosives were used, how can you deny that it is far more likely that the sounds were the normal sounds of a severely damaged building?

I shouldn’t be surprised you won’t commit to what made these noises as thermite doesn’t cause massive explosions nor shake buildings etc. And massive explosions that do rock buildings can’t be contained inside a building ringed with glass.

You have still not sensibly explained why “they” would set off explosives well in advance of the actual collapse?

TBC
Posted by Paul.L, Tuesday, 30 December 2008 7:59:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CONT,

By the way, I missed this in your previous post

You said >> “Instead, he tries to imply that because it wasn't captured on camera or because Lou Cacchioli did not see it for himself with his own eyes, that it could not have happened.”

You have turned into a FLAT OUT LIAR. You just make things up to suit your argument. Stop trying to imagine what I’m implying, because you are SO BAD at it its not funny. I will expect proof or an apology for this one, seeing as I have run you off on the Bush Democracy thread and I am unlikely to get one there.

Your question >> “ If Lou Cacchioli personally did not have 'definitive proof bombs were actually detonated .. that the 9/11 Commission should have at least have seriously investigated that possibility”

You again OVERSTATE your case. The 112 firemen Griffin quotes have 1 thing in common. They used the word “explode” or “explosion” in their preliminary interviews to describe the events of that day. It is a blatant falsification to suggest that all of these people thought they were hearing actual bombs going off. I have demonstrated time and again that just because people used the word “explode” doesn’t mean they were referring to demolition charges.

The 9/11 commission found no physical evidence of explosives, no left over RDX, no det cord, no scorched or blast damaged steel, and no VIDEO evidence that bombs were exploding. All they had was a few truth movement RATBAGS who were making RIDICULOUS claims. For example these people were denying passenger jets were used to attack the twin towers. And they suggested that the attacks on the pentagon were a missile strike etc.

As for Cachiolli’s testimony to the commission, I have no idea what he said, perhaps you can enlighten us
Posted by Paul.L, Tuesday, 30 December 2008 8:01:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I note that Paul has, yet again, failed a direct answer to my straight question:

"If Lou Cacchioli personally did not have 'definitive proof bombs were actually detonated .. that the 9/11 Commission should have at least have seriously investigated that possibility."

Paul wrote, "... They used the word 'explode' or 'explosion' in their preliminary interviews to describe the events of that day. It is a blatant falsification to suggest that all of these people thought they were hearing actual bombs going off. I have demonstrated time and again that just because people used the word 'explode' doesn't mean they were referring to demolition charges."

Then how about this one:

Q. "How did you know that it was coming down?"
A. "That noise. It was a noise."
Q. "What did you hear? What did you see?"
A. "It was a frigging noise. At first I thought it was--do you ever see professional demolition
where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear 'pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'?"
[Daniel Rivera, 9110035, p. 9]

?

Also at least two news presenters on the day volunteered as they observed the 'collapses' on the day that they reminded them of controlled demolitions ...

... and yet Paul excuses the 9/11 Commission not having explored that possibility.

---

Paul wrote, "The 9/11 commission found no physical evidence of explosives, no left over RDX, no det cord, no scorched or blast damaged steel, ..."

Where does the report say this, Paul? What concerted effort was ever made to look for this evidence, before it was all removed?

Paul continued, "... and no VIDEO evidence that bombs were exploding. "

Is Paul seriously suggesting that he is unable explosions in any of these images:

http://www.ae911truth.org/images/explo2.jpg
on http://www.ae911truth.org http://911research.wtc7.net/materials/wtc/docs/tower2_exp1.jpg
http://911research.wtc7.net/materials/wtc/docs/site1103.jpg
on http://911research.wtc7.net/materials/wtc/twintowers.html

... or in this YouTube broadcast "South Tower Coming Down" by David Chandler at http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=atSd7mxgsGY

... and many others?

If so, he is either a moron or he is a liar.
Posted by daggett, Wednesday, 31 December 2008 2:07:44 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul demands of me an apology for having written, "... he tries to imply that because it wasn't captured on camera or because Lou Cacchioli did not see it for himself with his own eyes, that it could not have happened."

Of course he didn't literally say that, but either he agrees that there is a significant likelihood that what Lou Cacchioli heard was demolition explosives, in which case the 9/11 Commission should have seriously investigated that possibility, or he doesn't.

As he has essentially said the latter, then I consider my statement justified.
Posted by daggett, Wednesday, 31 December 2008 2:08:41 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course, the first sentence in my second most previous last post should have read:

"I note that Paul has, yet again, failed [to answer] a direct answer to my straight question:"

The source for my quote of Daniel Rivera being interviewed was http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_5_118Witnesses_WorldTradeCenter.pdf .

---

Some more news:

http://www.ae911truth.org/info/44
http://www.gators911truth.org/PDF/911-letter-HWS-Mueller.PDF http://www.gators911truth.org/PDF/FBI-Response.pdf

FBI Acknowledges Thorough Research and Analysis of AE911Truth, 27 Dec 08

The FBI's Michael J. Heimbach, Assistant Director, Counterterrorism Division, says: "Mr. Gage presents an interesting theory, backed by thorough research and analysis."

---

"Career Army officer sues Rumsfeld, Cheney, saying no evacuation order given on 9/11" at http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20081218130254118

A career Army officer who survived the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, claims that no evacuation was ordered inside the Pentagon, despite flight controllers calling in warnings of approaching hijacked aircraft nearly 20 minutes before the building was struck.
According to a time-line of the attacks, the Federal Aviation Administration notified NORAD that American Airlines Flight 77 had been hijacked at 9:24 a.m. The Pentagon was not struck until 9:43 a.m.

On behalf of retired Army officer April Gallop, California attorney William Veale has filed a civil suit against former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney and former US Air Force General Richard Myers, who was acting chairman of the joint chiefs on 9/11. It alleges they engaged in conspiracy to facilitate the terrorist attacks and purposefully failed to warn those inside the Pentagon, contributing to injuries she and her two-month-old son incurred. ...
Posted by daggett, Wednesday, 31 December 2008 10:39:30 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 70
  7. 71
  8. 72
  9. Page 73
  10. 74
  11. 75
  12. 76
  13. ...
  14. 81
  15. 82
  16. 83
  17. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy