Al Dykes
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:54 am Post subject: Re: Was 9/11 an Inside Job? |
 |
|
In article <4a9dd86e-a4a2-42b7-96d1-186c1b7003c8@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
colp <colp@solder.ath.cx> wrote:
| Quote: | On Aug 19, 12:11 am, ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
In article <e1701d01-b1df-4fad-9953-b52dedb39...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
colp <c...@solder.ath.cx> wrote:
On Aug 17, 2:24 pm, agen...@justicespammail.com wrote:
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 19:10:09 -0700, "al92653" <al92...@xyz.com> wrote:
"colp" <c...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in message
news:b0d4fad5-d2c2-499b-b807-34253b5e67fa@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 17, 11:34 am, DaN <D...@dansNOSPAMcomp.net> wrote:
Some Islamic assholes, hijacked some planes and crashed them into
buildings in the name of Allah.
What is so unbelievable about that?
That they managed to cause the destruction of the twin towers in
defiance of the known laws of physics.
If you take the official story as being factual then there were not
enough sources of energy to account for the fine particulate matter
and the pools of molten metal that were reported up to five weeks
after the event.
We're not going to let minor details get in the way.
Who do you believe; the laws of Physics or your lying government?
The laws of physics, none of which were violated on 9/11.
Which means that the American government lied, since the laws of
physics require more energy for the observed phenomena (molten metal,
powdered contrete, burned cars) that was available from sources
described by the official account.
You have been lied to by people that use the word, "truth" much too
much.
Do you have anything other than circular reasoning to support your
claim?
|
Many expamples of intelectual fraud by the leaders of the "Truth
Movement". Some examples here:
-----------------------------------------
There is a pattern and practice of some people in the "Truth Movement"
committing fraud and a huge echo chamber of people mindlessly
repeating things. I check quotes, That's how I came across this crap.
There is *zero* effort by the Truthies to fact check and correct their
own material. The worst are the alleged "peer reviewed" sites. They
contain fraudlent quotes by NYFD/EMS personel that can be shown to
differ from the public record. One of the steps in peer review is
fact checking.
Examples;
Washington Newsman Mike Walters shown how Truthys have twisted his
9/11 reporting;
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1dd_1177892305
------------------------
"Todd Beamer is Alive"
Truthys have said that Beamer (Flt93) is alive becuase and
used this faek quote
"Todd Beamer's wife told Larry King on CNN on 23 Aug 2002 that he
is still alive.",
When we find the real quote, we see that she means he's in heavan.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0208/23/lkl.00.html
KING: So you feel Todd is somewhere now?
BEAMER: Absolutely. Todd is still alive. He is alive in a much
different scenario than he was last year at this time, but...
KING: Watching you and the babies?
BEAMER: I don't know how much influence he has or knowledge he has
of what goes on here. The Bible doesn't give us really a complete
picture of the connection between Heaven and Earth. But I do know
that he's experiencing the presence of God. And he is more alive now
than he was before. And I'll join him some day
--------------------------------------------
Rick Siegel, the person that shot video of the WTC collapse
from Hoboken, 2 miles away, shows his original video and
compares it to the the versions used in two "Truth Movement"
conspiracy videos; "9/11 Eyewitness" by James Brewster and
"9/11 Mysteries" by Sophia Shafquat.
Siegel shows that the "explosions" heard on 9/11 Mysteries and
9/11 Eyewitness are, in fact, not on his the original tape.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jir7yWTroN8
Brewster & Shafquat claim the sounds are evidence of man-made
explosives at WTC. Someone manipulated the sound track to make
those noises.
Of the dozens of video tapes we have from WTC on 9/11, there are
no recordings that show explosions that sound like man-made
blasts and are loud enough and timed to be consistent with any
building collapse. The 1993 bombing, equal to 1,000 bounds of TNT
and loud enough to be heard throughout the WTC complex and for
blocks around, was not large enough to do any structural damage to
the WTC tower it was under.
WTC on 9/11 was probably the most-witnessed disaster in history.
For more information about all the imagery we have for it read the
book, "Watching The world change; The Stories behind the images
of 9/11" by David Friend
For more information about fact-based 9/11, go to
http://911mysteriesguide.com/
and
911myths.com
--------------------------------------------
An Aside: Mr. Jones's Dishonest Illogic.
| Quote: | From the very same Debunking911 page I referenced above,
check out this litte gem as an aside. |
---
In Steven Jones' PDF "Answers to Objections and Questions", to
support his claim for Sol-gels/Thermite he states:
"One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at
levels "that dwarfed all others": 1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never
observed it in any sampling we've ever done,"
However when you look at the link he uses
http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-hsair0911,0,471193.story?coll=ny-homepage-right-area
You find out Mr. Jones edits out the VERY next line which states
"He said it was most likely produced by the plastic of tens of
thousands of burning computers."
Apparently, Jones felt this was not important enough for his readers
to know.
----------------------
Here's another bit of fraud by someone that uses "truth" a lot. Many
911 web sites, http://911review.com/coverup/oralhistories.html for
one) have this quote;
"you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south
tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten
explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was."
Craig Carlsen -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 8] ...
The sites never provide a link to the original testmony to see the
entire quote;
"you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south
tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten
explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. WE REALIZED
LATER AFTER TALKING AND FINDING OUT THAT IT WAS THE FLOORS
COLLAPSING TO WHERE THE PLANE HAD HIT.
Source:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110505.PDF
----------------------
Many Truthy sites have this quote from a firemen. This
URL, for example; http://www.911lies.org/fire_fighters_911_wtc_tapes.html
"It was like a professional demolition where they set the charges on
certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'."
- NYC Paramedic Daniel Rivera
The Truthies edited Rivera's text to obscure the fact that Rivera
knew it was just syuff collapsing.
Q: HOW DID YOU KNOW THAT IT WAS COMING DOWN
A: THAT NOISE IT WAS 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 THAVS EXACTLY WHAT BECAUSE THOUGHT
IT WASTHAT WHEN HEARD THAT FRIGGING NOISE
THAVS WHEN SAWTHE BUILDING COMING DOWN
Q: WHAT DID YOU DO
A: RUN MOST OF THE PEOPLE RAN INTO THE
Source:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110035.PDF
----------------------
Here is the page of official testimony for about 500 first responders.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html
You can check lots of trythy quotes here, and if the Truty site says
something different, it's not impossible to contact any of them and
verify quote.
I first came across these fraud edited NYFD quotes on Jones' "peer
reviewed" 911 site. (there are more misleadingly edited quotes
there). One task of peer review is fact checking. It's clear that the
site is bullshit.
That's enough of the fine people in NYFD and EMS. Here are more;
------------------------------------------------------------
Many sites have quotes similar to this;
Danielle O'Brien commenting on how air traffic
controllers thought Flight 77 was a military plane based on
its maneuverability;
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/aerobatics.html
but it leaves out the end of the statement,
"... you don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."
My point isn't that the quote is goldplate accurate,
it's that the Truthies have edited pertenant info out,
not told us, and not given URLs to sources.
----------------------------------------------------------
Loose Change quotes the coroner, Wally Miller,
as seeing no bodies or blood the day of Flight 93's crash;
over the next several weeks Miller goes on to identify 12
passengers "using mostly dental records."[31]
http://www.postgazette.com/headlines/20011003crash1003p3.asp
------------------------------------------------------
You.ll often find transcripts of witness statements used on 9/11
sites. Here.s one used to support a .controlled demolition at the WTC
argument, for instance.:
A description of what appeared to be a ring of explosions was also
given by Deputy Commissioner Thomas Fitzpatrick, who said: "We looked
up at the [south tower] . . . . All we saw was a puff of smoke coming
from about 2 thirds of the way up . . . . It looked like sparkling
around one specific layer of the building. . . . My initial reaction
was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those
implosions on TV."
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=4131
Convincing? Looks that way, but then that.s because you.re not reading
the original. Where Fitzpatrick says he doesn.t recall thinking he saw
explosions at all, and offers an alternative explanation, but
mysteriously that.s been edited out:
We looked up at the building straight up, we were that close. All we
saw was a puff of smoke coming from about 2 thirds of the way up. Some
people thought it was an explosion. I don't think I remember that. I
remember seeing, it looked like sparkling around one specific layer of
the building. I assume now that that was either windows starting to
collapse like tinsel or something. Then the building started to come
down. My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks
when they show you those implosions on TV.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Fitzpatrick_Tom.txt
You always need to look at the complete transcript, then, and the 9/11
Transcripts Blog is designed to help you do just that. Interesting
transcripts are highlighted regularly, there.s a search engine to look
for quotes, and links to help you find out more. Visit it here.
----------------------------------------------------------
There are quotes like this interview of chief flight instructor Marcel
Bernard focusing on the weaknesses of Hani Hanjour's flying skills
when he took
Flight Academy] Staff members characterized Mr. Hanjour as polite,
meek and very quiet. But most of all, the former employee said,
they considered him a very bad pilot. "I'm still to this day amazed
that he could have flown into the Pentagon," the former employee
said. "He could not fly at all.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hanjour.html
It fails to clarify Bernard's expert opinion on Hanjour's ability to
hit the Pentagon. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that
[hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a
building and hit it."
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/disinfo/deceptions/nynewsday_sep23.html
-------------------------
http://www.911lies.org/fire_fighters_911_wtc_tapes.html
---------
My favorite example of how these conspiracy theorists such as the guys
behind Loose Change selectively edit information in order to get the
desired conclusion is the CNN interview with the guy outside the
Pentagon right after the plane hit. The guy said (and I'm
paraphrasing) "It was a red and blue plane, clearly a United Jet, and
it crashed into the side of the Pentagon. It looked like a missile
when it was coming toward the building and there was a giant explosion
when I saw the plane hit the building." The conspiracy theorists edit
out everything except for "It looked like a missile" and use that as
absolute proof that a missile and not a plane hit the Pentagon.
-----------
I've been asking for months about where this 35 seconds of video came
from. I'd like to know what the Truthies edited out, given the above.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3060923273573302287
-----------
Quotes
.I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the
building. You know like when they demolish a building?.--Assistant
Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory
Now the WHOLE QUOTE without the taking out of context...
I know I was with an officer from Ladder 146, a Lieutenant
Evangelista, who ultimately called me up a couple of days later just
to find out how I was. We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't
know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that
particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I
looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down,
before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-leve] flashes. In my
conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to
him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front
of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that
time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result
of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash
flash and then it looked like the building came down.
Q.: Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?
A: No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they
demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls
down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to
him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just
wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said
did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by
see anything? He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I
thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too.
I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the
building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been
electrical explosions, it could have been whatever.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/Gregory_Stephen.txt
Let me guess why they left that important part out..
.t was [like a] professional demolition where they set the
charges on certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop,
pop'."--Paramedic Daniel Rivera
SO WE WERE PRETTY MUCH-MOST OF THE WORKERS WERE INSIDE THIS
BUILDING. I LIKE SAID, I DON'T KNOW IF ITS FIVE WORLD TRADE CENTER OR
FOUR WORLD TRADE CENTER. MOST OF THEM WERE IN THE BUILDING BECAUSE THE
CHIEF OR THE CAPTAIN SAID IF YOU WANT YOU CAN STAY INSIDE THAT
BUILDING. BUT I DIDN'T FEEL SAFE BECAUSE I KNEW IT WAS TERRORIST
ATTACK SO I WAS SCARED. EVERY TIME YOU HEAR PLANE EVERYONE WOULD
RUN. SO I PRETTY MUCH STOOD AROUND HERE SOMEWHERE. I WOULD SEE TRIAGE,
BUT I WAS PRETTY MUCH IN BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS.
THEN THAT'S WHEN-I KEPT ON WALKING CLOSE TO THE SOUTH TOWER, AND
THAT'S WHEN THAT BUILDING COLLAPSED.
Q: HOW DID YOU KNOW THAT IT WAS COMING DOWN?
A: THAT NOISE .IT WAS 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"? THAT'S EXACTLY
WHAT-BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS THAT WHEN I HEARD THAT FRIGGING NOISE,
THAT'S WHEN I SAW THE BUILDING COMING DOWN.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/9110035.PDF
First, notice he and everyone else was scared of TERRORISTS. What
do TERRORIST DO? So it's not unreasonable for someone who is thinking
TERRORIST to hear the sound of huge concrete floors falling one on top
of the other to think "BOMB" first. As I said, No one has ever seen an
airplane hit buildings constructed like this and the collapse of this
odd combination.
.There was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It
appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides,
materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a
momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse."
--Chief Frank Cruthers
there was what appeared to be at first an explosion. it appeared
at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/Cruthers.txt
And why wouldn't floors falling around the building NOT APPEAR to
be an EXPLOSION... :blink:
"I started walking back up towards Vesey Street. I heard three
explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and tower
two started to come down.. --Paramedic Kevin Darnowski
Again, just more sounds like explosions as floors ram into each
other. Note he doesn't say he SAW three explosions.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/9110202.PDF
And here is the outright LIE...
. we heard explosions coming from building two, the south
tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten
explosions. . . . We then realized the building started to come
down.. -- Firefighter Craig Carlsen
Note where these liars put the "...."
Now for the REAL quote...
I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming
from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever,
but there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what
it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was
the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/9110505.PDF
With that alone I should rest my case.  These CT sites are dishonest.
Here is the other lie, they split up those quotes to make it seem
like there are more people hearing explosions than there really
are. You have paramedic Daniel Rivera's interview split in two and
Stephen Gregory's interview split in two, as if there are different
people hearing different explosions. They flood you with quotes hoping
you won't notice. What other reason would they have for splitting them
up???
.Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the
building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound,
and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red
flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around
the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds
and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and
then all around the building." -- Captain Karin Deshore
MY BACK WAS TOWARDS THE BUILDING, TRYING TO PUSH EVERYBODY UP.
GRASSY HILL WAS THERE AND UP UNDERNEATH THAT OVERPASS, WHEN
SOMEBODY JUST SIMPLY SHOUTED AND I HAVE NO IDEA WHO IT WAS, "IT'S
BLOWING".
I HAD NO CLUE WHAT WAS GOING ON. I NEVER TURNED AROUND BECAUSE A
SOUND CAME FROM SOMEWHERE THAT NEVER HEARD BEFORE. SOME PEOPLE
COMPARED IT WITH AN AIRPLANE. IT WAS THE WORST SOUND OF ROLLING SOUND,
NOT A THUNDER CAN'T EXPLAIN IT, WHAT IT WAS. ALL I
KNOW IS -- AND FORCE STARTED TO COME HIT ME IN MY BACK. I CAN'T
EXPLAIN IT. YOU HAD TO BE THERE. ALL I KNOW IS -- HAD TO RUN BECAUSE I
THOUGHT THERE WAS AN EXPLOSION.
...I WAS UNAWARE WHAT WAS HAPPENING. I THOUGHT
IT WAS JUST MAJOR EXPLOSION I DIDN'T KNOW THE BUILDING WAS COLLAPSING
SOMEWHERE AROUND THE MIDDLE OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER, THERE WAS
THIS ORANGE AND RED FLASH COMING OUT. INITIALLY IT WAS JUST ONE
FLASH. THEN THIS FLASH JUST KEPT POPPING ALL THE WAY AROUND THE
BUILDING AND THAT BUILDING HAD STARTED TO EXPLODE. THE POPPING SOUND,
AND WITH EACH POPPING SOUND IT WAS INITIALLY AN ORANGE AND THEN RED
FLASH CAME OUT OF THE BUILDING AND THEN IT WOULD JUST GO ALL AROUND
THE BUILDING ON BOTH SIDES AS FAR AS COULD SEE. THESE POPPING SOUNDS
AND THE EXPLOSIONS WERE GETTING BIGGER GOING BOTH UP AND DOWN AND THEN
ALL AROUND THE BUILDING.
It's time to see a transformer explosion.
http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Electric-Transformer-Explosion
All these buildings had transformers and transformer vaults.
SO HERE THESE EXPLOSIONS ARE GETTING BIGGER AND LOUDER AND BIGGER
AND LOUDER AND I TOLD EVERYBODY IF THIS BUILDING TOTALLY EXPLODES,
STILL UNAWARE THAT THE OTHER BUILDING HAD COLLAPSED, IM GOING IN THE
WATER.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/9110192.PDF
.I took a quick glance at the building and while I didn't see
it falling, I saw a large section of it blasting out, which led me to
believe it was just an explosion.. -- Captain Jay Swithers
When I was giving her the oxygen, setting up the tank, you could
hear a loud rumble. Somebody said run for your life. I turned to see
who was yelling "run".
At that point I looked back and most of the people who were
triaged in that area with the triage tags on them got up and ran. I
took a quick glance at the building and while I didn't see it falling,
I saw a large section of it blasting out, which led me to believe it
was just an explosion. I thought it was a secondary device, but I knew
that we had to go.
But one thing that did happen was an ambulance pulled up which was very clean. So I assumed that the vehicle had not been in the - what I thought was an explosion at the time, but was the first collapse.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/9110172.PDF
First he heard the rumble. Not the so called "Explosion" which he never saw. Then he thought he heard an explosion because he saw the debris falling away from the building. He had TERRORIST on his mind and jumped to the conclusion that it was a bomb. You don't have to be a psychologist here.
Fire officer Paul Isaac Jr. asserted that 9-11 was an inside job last September 11 at ground zero where mourners and protesters were gathered; .I know 9-11 was an inside job. The police know it.s an inside job; and the firemen know it too., said Isaac.
"there were definitely bombs in those buildings,. Isaac added that .many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they.re afraid for their jobs to admit it because the .higher-ups. forbid discussion of this fact.. --Auxiliary Lieutenant Fireman Paul Isaac
Paul Isaac never said anything of the kind. Another Conspiracy Theorist deception.
A video is shown on just about every conspiracy web site which shows a few fireman discussing what they heard and saw.
fireman2: We made it outside, we made it about a block.
fireman1: We made it at least 2 blocks.
fireman2: 2 blocks.
fireman1: and we started runnin'
fireman2: poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch
fireman1: Floor by floor it started poppin' out .
fireman2: It was as if as if they had detonated, det.
fireman1: yea detonated yea
fireman2: as if they had planned to take down a building,
boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom.
In the context of reading it off a conspiracy site, this may sound like damning evidence. They are saying .detonated. and .they had planned to take down a building.. They even say .Boom. to describe the sound. But if you hear the other things they.re saying, their body language and context outside the conspiracy theory setting, something else emerges. Before or after every description is .As if.. .As if they had planned to take down a building.. .It was as if as if they had detonated.. They also use body language to show it was the sound of the floors crashing into one another.
boom- (hand moves down)
boom- (hand moves down)
boom- (hand moves down)
boom- (hand moves down)
boom- (hand moves down)
boom- (hand moves down)
boom- (hand moves down)
boom.
This could be just as powerful evidence of pancaking as the use of explosives. But the real evidence isn.t so much examining the video as examining the actions taken, or NOT taken, by the NYC Fire Department after the event. The NYC Fire Department hasn.t rallied its members to force an investigation into the possible murder of over 300 of its members. Some sites offer an explanation of this saying there was a gag order placed on the Fire Department. The only place you will find this is on conspiracy theory sites. No mention from main stream press about the hundreds if not thousands of fireman on the scene not being allowed to talk.
A glaring example of picking and choosing what to focus on is the interview with Mary Baldizzi... They point to a BBC article that says
The jet fuel caused the fire to spread so far and so fast that it effectively cut the building into two. For the 6,000 people below where the plane had hit the staircases still offered a means of escape, but for the 950 caught above the point of impact and the fire there was no way out.
The argument is made that towers fell because of separate detonations. As proof, they offered the case of Mary Baldizzi who supposedly had escaped the 104th floor of the World Trade Center's North Tower by elevator. Thus, the only way she could have escaped via elevator was if the core was intact at least to the 104th floor.
When I watched the video, I thought, if there had been a survivor from above the impact zone in Tower 1, it would have been widely broadcast. So, logically, I searched online for either confirmation or repudiation. I found neither. What I did find was the repeated use of Ms. Baldizzi's story as evidence in various alternative theories (i.e., other than fire) for the collapse of the towers.
Returning to the original video, I watched it several more times. After listening closely to Ms. Baldizzi's interview, I came to the conclusion that Mary Baldizzi was not on the 104th floor of the North Tower (WTC1) but was on the 104th floor of the South Tower (WTC2) and that this was a misrepresentation of her escape as having been from WTC1. Here are the reasons I came to this conclusion:
1. Although the newswomen began the interview stating that Mary Baldizzi had come down the elevators from the 104th floor and was in the "first tower when it was struck," at no time during the interview does Ms. Baldizzi state that she was in the North Tower. In addition, none of the graphics that accompany the interview claim that Ms. Baldizzi was in the North Tower. When Ms. Baldizzi is asked if she felt the impact, she says "Oh yeah." But the effects she describes -- feeling the heat, experiencing the shaking, hearing the explosion -- are all effects experienced by those who were in the South Tower on the floors adjacent to the impact zone (see:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002-09-02-choices-usat_x.htm ). If she had been in the North Tower when it was hit then she would have described the impact in much less casual terms.
2. Around 5 minutes and 20 seconds into the interview, the interviewers ask about Ms. Baldizzi's coworkers. Ms. Baldizzi's states that she does not know the whereabouts of her fellow employees and proceeds to state, around 5:55 of the interview, that she has no way of contacting them other than to "call [the] main office in Illinois." Now, the offices on the 104th floor of the North Tower were occupied exclusively by Cantor Fitzgerald, while offices on the 104th floor of the South Tower were occupied by Sandler O'Neill (see: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/tenants1.html). Cantor Fitzgerald does not have a main office in Illinois (see: http://www.cantor.com/contact/). Sandler O'Neill, on the other hand, does have a central office in Chicago (see: http://www.sandleroneill.com/). This suggests that Ms. Baldizzi was an employee of Sandler O'Neill (in the South Tower) rather than Cantor Fitzgerald (in the North Tower).
3. Finally, and conclusively, at 6:15 in the interview Ms. Baldizzi begins a discussion about what she and her coworkers did when they exited the building. She clearly says: "There were police officers, thank God, that were aiming us towards Liberty St. because we stupidly walked towards One World Trade because we didn't know; we had no idea it was a terrorist attack." Now, if Ms. Baldizzi had been in One World Trade Center (i.e., the North Tower) there is no way she would have described her egress as "towards One Word Trade" because no matter in which direction she walked she would have been going away from One World Trade. This point proves, beyond any doubt, that Ms. Baldizzi exited from the South Tower and that the mistaken announcement at the beginning of the interview that she was in the North Tower was just one of the miscommunications and misunderstandings in the chaos of those early days.
I concluded that Ms. Baldizzi exited Tower 2 at the same time many others in the building did: after the North Tower was hit but before the South Tower was hit. If she was "dragged" into the elevator within seconds after the first tower was hit, and if the elevator ride took about 4 minutes, she would've been out of the building well before the South Tower was hit.
USA Today
As you can see the South Tower core was not damaged as much because of large, heavily constructed elevator equipment which protected it anyway.
There were two freight elevators that serviced the 104th floor.
Cars #6 and #50 serviced the 104th floor, lobby and basement levels.
----------
. Car #5: B1-5, 7, 9-40, 44
. Car #6: B1-5, 44, 75, 77-107 *
. Car #17: B1-1, 41, 43-78
. Car #48: B1-7, 9-40
. Car #49: B1-5, 41-74
. Car #50: B6-108 *
. Car #99: 107-110
There were two express elevators to Windows on the World (and related conference rooms and banquet facilities) in WTC 1 and two to the observation deck in WTC 2.
pg 34 (adobe pg 72)
NIST NCSTAR 1-7 (Draft)
Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster
Occupant Behavior, Egress, and Emergency Communications (Draft)
There were firemen who radioed in after being stuck in the elevator moments before the south tower collapsed.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/wtcaudio/wtcaudio8.html
So there were elevators working in the south tower AFTER the impact. But what's important here is that the interview is being taken out of context. A theme which seems to run strong with these conspiracy theorists.
Thanks to Scott S Coastal and Drval.
-------------------------------------
The Airfone "Smoking Gun"
It has been going around the truther community the last week or so that they have found a "smoking gun" proving that 9/11 was a government conspiracy, because AA flight 77 did not have airfones. This has most recently been mentioned in a David Ray Griffin interview posted on 911 Blogger:
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/05/airfone-smoking-gun.html
-----------------------------------------------
In article <469e4115$0$16397$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>,
Ramabriga <Ramabriga@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3KcT_LVM0E
--
|
Everyone, watch that video, it's only a minute long (unlike most Truth
Movement videos) and it shows the "Truth Movement" one more time
misusing the words of others to make us believe that someone believes
Truthy claims.
------------------
he BBC doesn't claim "that it has lost all of its 9/11 videos".
The BBC does claim that it has lost all of its 9/11 videos from BBC World Service. The tapes from BBC News 24 for example are not lost.
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234
Said Richard Porter, Head of News, BBC World, 27 Feb 07, 05:12 PM:
Quote:
We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditor...onspiracy.html
I love quote-mining!
The very next sentence in your source reads:
Quote:
We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another.
So, TruthSeeker1234, why don't you try to get hold of these tapes and prove your point?
And don't forget the many other European broadcasters in your quest.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html
------------------------------
Documented fraud: http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=hmG3z1oVdjc
| Quote: | http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_firefighters.html
|
BTW: On that same URL, the quote, "There's a bomb in the building -
start clearing out"..."We got a secondary device in the building"
on your first URL is from a bomb call from some building mile
from WTC It was a false alarm.
I bet the Twoofers never tell you that. They lie by omission.
--------------------------------------------
This video ducuments Truth Movement video of a WTC tower collapse
using added explosion noises.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2873871255585611926
------------------------------------
Rick Siegel, the person that shot video of the WTC collapse
from Hoboken, 2 miles away, shows his original video and
compares it to the the versions used in two "Truth Movement"
conspiracy videos; "9/11 Eyewitness" by James Brewster and
"9/11 Mysteries" by Sophia Shafquat.
Siegel shows that the "explosions" heard on 9/11 Mysteries and
9/11 Eyewitness are, in fact, not on his the original tape.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jir7yWTroN8
Brewster & Shafquat claim the sounds are evidence of man-made
explosives at WTC. Someone manipulated the sound track to make
those noises.
Of the dozens of video tapes we have from WTC on 9/11, there are
no recordings that show explosions that sound like man-made
blasts and are loud enough and timed to be consistent with any
building collapse. The 1993 bombing, equal to 1,000 bounds of TNT
and loud enough to be heard throughout the WTC complex and for
blocks around, was not large enough to do any structural damage to
the WTC tower it was under.
WTC on 9/11 was probably the most-witnessed disaster in history.
For more information about all the imagery we have for it read the
book, "Watching The world change; The Stories behind the images
of 9/11" by David Friend
For more information about fact-based 9/11, go to
http://911mysteriesguide.com/
and
911myths.com
911FACT: #1 of what will become a series showing the frauds of the
"Truth Movement"
----------------------------------------------
"impossible speed" & "no plane fakery busted.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f8IiQMjf3U
--------------------------------
Tape recording of a meeting in progress that captured sounds of the impact
and is part of the audio archive of 9/11 has been manibolated in Loose Change.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3192757#post3192757
leftysergeant: It's Ginny -- not Jenny -- Carr. The audio was hosted
by the 911 Digital Archive, which is currently redoing their website
and the original audio links are defunct. This is what you get when
you search for Ginny Carr:
I've uploaded a comparison of the audio and Dylan's version here:
http://files-upload.com/files/645895/ginnycarr-comp.mp3
It's quite clear that the audio has been modified.
-----------------------------------
17 second clip of firemen at a pay phone apparently reacting to an
explosion is shown to have "explsions" added to the sound track.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I
As shown in tis video, athat clip was shot by Lucia Davis and it was
on Chambers St (I know the area) Chambers St. is about half a mile from WTC and
if teh blast was this large at Chambers, it would have broken eardrums
all over lower manhattan.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=DpAHh-yT25Q&feature=related
News camcorder mics are mono as general practice. There just isn't
any percentage in having a stereo mic as you'd tie-up two tape tracks
for production quality that would virtually never be used.
No, youtube doesn't change the audio settings (and couldn't make
stereo out of a mono signal). Listening to that clip, the
"explosion" is inconsistent with any of the other audio in that
clip. As presented, the whole clip's in mono but the "explosion" by
virtue of its presence and general sound quality is inconsistent
with any of the other sync audio. That's a polite way of saying the
"explosion" audio wasn't recorded by the microphone that was
recording the guys in the clip. That waves a big red flag of FAIL
insofar as this being an actual, unmodified clip from the day. This
is a clear fake and on the 'evidence' of this clip alone, it isn't
incumbent on anybody else to waste time digging for the original to
additionally prove otherwise.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3269130#post3269130
Without attribution, someone claims it cones from this
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0322733/
-----------------------------------------------
The signs have been photoshopped. I was at this march. I saw no "Truth
Movement" signs.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/55281377@N00/102925932
http://www.dhadm.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/war-protest.jpg
---------------------------------------------------
Either by ignorance or hoping that nobody that knew the language would
fact-check them, the Truthers have misquoted the statements of the
ex-Italian President, Cossiga as supprting the idea of "inside job".
Discussed in
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=100367
-----------
WTC collapse - the noise is fake becuase it's in sync with the motion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LUZcJrkLNI
-------------------------
Flakey Pilots4Truth member with an aggenda
I just finished watching a YouTube video about 9/11 concerning the
impossibility of flying into the side of the Pentagon. It featured one
of the less-frequently discussed members of the Pilots fopr 911 Truth,
Glen Stanish.
One of his reasons for doubting rthe official narrative, as i deduced
from Rumor Mill News, was that the crater made by Flt 93 was wrong. He
insists that there should have been identifiable wreckage on the
site. He then links to a bunch of air disaster photos that should, in
his mind, prove the point, insisting that the other crashes were under
similar circunstances.
None of them, however, involved an aircraft going nose-down into soft
ground. None involved a head-on with a wall.
Most involved down-drafts, loss of pilot control leading to a flat
spin, skimming the sides of mountains, and the Sioux City crash of
1989, which was one of the most heroic landings ever attempted and
about as successful as could be hoped for given the circumstances.
Okay, I had to figure out why a supposed professional pilot could be
so ignorant or purposefully disingenuous. He had to be either one or
the other.
So I Googled him.
What a surprise that his name popped up here:
http://www.bollyn.com/index/?id=10374
Seems he has a book out called "America's Christian Patriots."
Hmm. Bollyn seems to like it, so we have to suspect that it is less
than stellar to start with.
He's a Dominionist. That puts him in the same camp with Benton
K. Partin. Lying to advance an aggenda. Build distrust for the
existing order. Suggest a substitute for that existing order.
The new world order that Stanish wants is one based on a theocracy, as
far as I can tell.
This is the New World Order of the Book of Revelations, with the
Church playing the Harlot to the government's Beast.
Okay, he sounds to me like he is lying deliberately to disinform the
public as to what should have happened in the crashes of that day. Now
we have a motive for his lies.
BOOK http://www.tatepublishing.com/bookstore/book.php?w=1-5988625-1-0
--
Al Dykes
News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
- Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail |
|
