And since you're always so hot about WTC 7..... Do you still say that there were only 3 small fires???? http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi Find this link at http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm To find firefighters quotes and more photos
Answer this - Just above this post I ask about the "3 small fires" that the conspiracy theorists say were present at WTC 7. Different photos and videos show otherwise, and were available to them when they fabricated their own theories... Why would they leave out any reference to these photos and videos? Why wouldn't they at least try to explain them away in an effort to make their case? Could it be because, regardless of how they state that they're after the "truth" about 9/11, that they're really not interested in the truth at all, and really only interested in bashing Bush, due to their anti-war feelings? Hmmmmm? SInce you, the beacon of all that is fair and just "take no position" on the subject,go here http://www.jod911.com/sounds.pdf and ponder why firefighters are misquoted, partially quoted, and quoted out of context. And ponder - why would anyone do that when the full quotes are available to anyone with an open mind and the willingness to look at both sides. WHy would they do that ZZZ, if not to influence the lazy sheeple? The conspriracy theorists are a perfect example of appealing to the lowest common denominator, in their effort to try and sway the sheeple into being anti Bush. The sad thing is, it worked when you look at the percentage of people that believe that the gov't had something to do with or where aware of the whole plot. Makes me sad that so many people are so dumb.
This helps explain the difference between the 2 views - In short, CT'ers ignore relavant info, and openly distort what is available. Plain dishonesty, IMHO. 1.6 What is Good Science? For me, good science is far more than accurate science. âAccurate representationâ for philosopher Richard Rorty is âsimply an automatic and empty compliment which we pay to those beliefs which are successful in helping us do what we want to do.â [Rorty, Richard, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1979, p. 10] I find this quintessentially postmodern approach to science not just inadequate but actually painful: my love of science has been lifelong and born out of its extraordinary ability to penetrate the world of appearances and find laws whose predictive powers are the basis of our modern technological lifestyles. More than just âhelping us do what we want to doâ however, I believe that the birth of science with Newton and others was the genuine basis for the Enlightenment and the values that flowed from it and which are the basis of what is best in the modern world. Above all, science taught the great thinkers of the Enlightenment that there was a way beyond personal prejudice and superstition in the settling of the affairs of society, a way of settling dispute based on evidence. Difficult as this path is, there lies an even more important lesson from science: when the evidence is not available then we are obliged to say: we donât know. Science is not often promoted as the discipline which teaches us what we donât know, but for me that is the essence of good science. The Witchfinder General only allowed the possibility that the accused man or woman was a witch or was not. âWe donât knowâ was not an option, and the most absurd evidence was concocted to fill the vacuum. For us to really know something in science we have to start with a simple system, isolate it from variables that enter from outside, and above all, be able to repeat the phenomenon under scrutiny. The WTC attack is as far removed from this as one can get. Only identical structures under identical impacts could form the basis for certain knowledge as to whether or not the impacts could cause the collapses. But when we examine both the wilder and the more sober adherents to the counter-orthodoxies and to the controlled demolition theory, we find a universal unwillingness to accept that âwe donât knowâ what happened. Not at least with the kind of certainty available to the phenomenon in controlled laboratory experiments. The most common complaint from the counter orthodoxy is âI canât believe that â¦â followed by a specific from the event. For example eye-witness accounts confirm that after impact on WTC 2 a blast blew out windows in the ground floor lobby and hurled people to the ground. The official account suggests that the kerosene-air mixture from the impact zone high up in the tower was forced down the lift shafts and other ducting by a fireball, causing the damage. Martin Sheene, speaking in the same TV interview, said: âI have a hard time believing that a fireball travelled down the elevator over 1100 feet and still had the explosive energy to destroy the lobby like it was described.â One can sympathise with this point of view, but good science goes beyond pub talk like this: it starts by not pre-judging. Instead it investigates. I need to make another point on good science here: the question of publication in refereed journals. The CD theorists are largely drawing on unpublished scientific papers. There is of course good science that is refused publication, and there is of course bad science that does get published, but these are exceptions, and on the whole what publication means is that experts in the field have checked the assumptions, experimental procedures, calculations, and flow of the argument that make up the paper. Even the most polymathic of scientists find this difficult to do outside of their own discipline. http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm
omg... how stupid.. do some research idot. the pancake theory is dead. this dumbass you cite talks about pressure from the floors collapsing. LOL LOL LOL... FORTY FLOORS BELOW !!!!!!!!! oh wait... there was an airtight tunnel leading to that spot where the squib first appeared. the dumbass you cite shows an example of a squib extremely close to the collapsing floors. all i can say is OWNED !!!!!!! get real... there is no pancaking. the cement is dust... if it pancaked there would be layers on ground zero.... stacked up like FLAP JACKS !!!!!! and a minimum of 45 seconds for the bldg to fall... instead we are talking free fall speed.
over 90% of the firefighters now know it was a controlled demo. nist claims there was a scoop in the front of wtc7... if this were the cause... the bldg would have tipped over.
you still havent explained the first squib.... come on hiroshi... step up to the plate instead of linking old discredited sites.
So I take it you're like that guy in the Penn and Teller video that said that "NOBODY can convince me....." In other words, you're NOT a real skeptic, are you? Just politically motivated by your anti-war stance...
Scooped out? Firehouse: Did that chief give an assignment to go to building 7? Boyle: He gave out an assignment. I didnât know exactly what it was, but he told the chief that we were heading down to the site. Firehouse: How many companies? Boyle: There were four engines and at least three trucks. So weâre heading east on Vesey, we couldnât see much past Broadway. We couldnât see Church Street. We couldnât see what was down there. It was really smoky and dusty." "A little north of Vesey I said, weâll go down, letâs see whatâs going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see whatâs going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didnât look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didnât look good. But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, weâre going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didnât look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasnât really keen on the idea. Then this other officer Iâm standing next to said, that building doesnât look straight. So Iâm standing there. Iâm looking at the building. It didnât look right, but, well, weâll go in, weâll see. So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobodyâs going into 7, thereâs creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned. Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side? Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it. Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many? Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, weâll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day. http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html SO is the fireman wrong about what he saw? Or is he lying?