Former FDNY Firefighter, Rudy Dent: "Incontrovertible fact (WTC) buildings were brought down."

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

Did you actually fail to notice all that information on memory retention and how stress affects it?

which means sh*t unless you can show it within the MAJORITY witnesses at the WTC complex.....and you did not.

basically all you are doing is 'WHY'gning.....

hundreds of witnesses from DIFFERENT locations around the towers say/see the SAME thing...there is no deviation from their experiences on 9-11.

Each time the specific memory is even thought about, it is changed.

yea.."instead of a blue jacket, I think it was green"...huh.

lmao.....so that is why the City went in a scrubbed out the witnessed testimonies about bombs at the WTC complex from their sworn transcripts......saving the FDNY future therapy cost.....aww....that's sweet.

And if you cannot understand the information I am providing or even pay enough attention to what I am actually saying.

uhm...I flat out ignore it....because there is NO indication it applies on 9-11.

just as you ignore the witnessed testimonies.....

duhbunker, if the science didn't support the WITNESSED event, you might have something.....but alas......it does.

ALL the taught known sciences of 9-11 says it was a controlled action x3.....and the majority of witnesses confirm that fact.

hey, probably the reason the 2008 NIST hypothesis crew claims a brand new never before seen physics phenomenon"
huh....

so if you want your pathetic claim of 'mental instability' to stick...I suggest you hop on over to one of the other threads that I, or anyone else discusses the SCIENCE...and show it wrong there before you start attacking the witnesses here.

but for some reason, I see NONE of the duhbunking staff there responding to any of the facts presented....go figure.

ALL OF THIS IS IN THE INFORMATION I PROVIDED YOU.

sorry charlie...strawman tactics do not work......remember these rules from the handbook.....

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough “jargon” and “minutiae” to illustrate you are “one who knows”, and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

originally posted by: GenRadek
a reply to: hgfbob

And every single one has been explained, debunked, or dismissed as nonsense, lies, misinformation, stupidity, ignorance, etc.

What she was describing was the initial interior collapses inside the North Tower. She is obviously mistaken as every video that was looking directly at the WTCs that day, show nothing of the sort happening anywhere in the middle of the North Tower. A helicopter pilot mentioned seeing interior floors at the impact sites collapsing, prior to full collapse. But no demolitions or detonations anywhere in the building. The explosions she is mentioning is more likely the explosions heard at the ground zero of the first collapse, where cars, trucks, fire trucks, ambulances, police vehicles, etc were exploding from fires/being crushed/impacted by debris, as well as ammunition cooking off in the debris pile.

There were signs of internal collapse. This would explain why fires were seen to come out more and more smoke appeared, plus the popping and explosion-like sounds. Remember, not all explosion sounds are caused by explosions. Would you be able to tell the difference between steel columns, supports, beams, etc snapping and breaking from say explosive charges?

Id read up on the NYPD reports here in regards to the North Tower prior to its demise.

That is some of the most mind-bendingly dumb nonsense I've ever heard. The explosions heard by thousands of people in the city, WAY before the towers fell were due to debris falling on cars and ammo cooking off? Seriously?

People who believe the official story just absolutely AMAZE me.

You want to know why nothing "new" has come to light? Maybe because all the evidence was destroyed and shipped off to China before any official investigation could even take place (criminal). Maybe because anyone who gets anywhere near the truth is ridiculed and labeled by people such as yourself. Maybe because there are disinfo agents and people who are just completely stupid who post ridiculous ideas of holograms and mini nukes and such things, thus throwing everything into disarray. Maybe its because people who can't think for themselves decided to believe that idiots like those at Popular Mechanics are the definitive source on everything 9/11.

The so called "truth" movement has done MORE research than any "official" story believer has ever done. But there are those that want to plug their ears, bury their heads and claim "America could NEVER do such a thing". WAKE UP.

a reply to: hgfbob

I know for a fact you have been on here a long time. And I know for a fact that the evidence has been posted here on ATS countless times. And when I say countless times, I mean COUNTLESS times. Just because you ignore it at every step and act like it's not there, it's there. For all to see and for all to read. Countless times have there been posted lengthy witness accounts of the conditions of the Twin Tower prior to collapses. Also countless times have "truther" talking points been dismissed as lies, mistakes, misunderstandings, and such. Just because you refuse to look at the evidence provided to you, free of charge, does not mean the questions have not been answered. It is just that the only answer you are looking for is ZOMG!!! Inside jeerrb!!! BUSH did it!! Bombs! ZIONISTS!! REPTILLIANS!!!! Etc etc etc...........

All the signs, all the events that truthers claim inside job have been explained. I would start here, where basic critical thinking, common sense, and actual science is used:
WTC Fires
In fact the whole site has very good observations and explanations that are easy to understand. As I said, all of this has been debunked.......... years ago.

a reply to: DerekJR321

You mean to tell me, that, in a fire, that is spread across 10+ floors, each an acre in size, burning from end to end, with a 767 inside, is NOT going to have explosions being heard? Really? Come now, I watched a garage catch fire and burn, and I ended up counting 3 explosions being heard before the fire dept put it out. Were there demo charges inside?

People in the "truth" movement need to realize that hearing explosions does not signify explosives. In easier terms: Hearing kaboom =/= bomb. Simple?

I do not deny people heard explosions in that mess. You had nearly 30 acres of offices and TWO airliners burning!! You'd have to be a dope to not expect explosions. However, there are many NON-bomb/NON-explosive sources of "explosions" that one would expect in such a large fire. I wish I wish I wish people would get that through their thick skulls.

a reply to: hgfbob

Uhm how our minds work is directly pertinent to the issue of "eyewitness testimony".

I would love to see you explain how it does not without resorting to ranting, gross generalization, wanton ignorance, and mindless ranting rejurgitation verbatum of party lines.
And.
Methinks you need to look up what constitutes a strawman argument.

a reply to: GenRadek

And I know for a fact that the evidence has been posted here on ATS countless times.

and again, the one thing you can not do it to show that here by either contributing it or linking to it....ONLY tell us about it.

point to ONE thread , that discusses the 2008 NIST hypothesis crews claim that NEW science occurred ONLY on 9-11.....and anything showing it false.

why did'n you in your post?

you start by TELLING what I post has already been explained, then INSTEAD of showing that, YOU proceed to further attack the messenger.....bunkers should know by now that does not work.

and, how long do ya want me to wait?

In fact the whole site has very good observations and explanations that are easy to understand.

duhbunking9-11..lmao......why can't you people EVER point to the ACTUAL 2005 NIST scientific investigation bestowed by Congress to scientifically investigate how and why three buildings fell on 9-11....INSTEAD, you point to bunker sites that TELL you what the reports REALLY mean huh....

ONE example; like how they LIE about the falling tower debris hitting WTC7....2005 NIST found that DID NOT occur....

NCSTAR1A p.39/130
"the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7."

or how the 2005 NIST can't even see the fire in WTC7.....HOW many FDNY claims are on that website that claim..."INFERNO"....."fire coming out of EVERY window'....why does NO pic out of the 50,000+ and 150 hours of video NIST had access to, show ANYTHING like this?????
why can I point to those 10,000+ pages and YOU can't?

You mean to tell me, that, in a fire, that is spread across 10+ floors, each an acre in size, burning from end to end, with a 767 inside, is NOT going to have explosions being heard?

fire that NEVER covered a single floor at any time....SPOT fire that continually moved.....ya see Edna hanging onto the very steel YOU claim is" SO HOT"!!!

funny that you i----s can only point to a 10 second clip of this INFERNO....there was MORE fire seen in the 1975 tower fire on the 11th floor that burnt for almost 4 hours and covered 70% of the floor including the entire core.....NO structural replacement of ANYTHING....NO collapse.

a "767'...like it's just parked there in it's entirety?!?!?!?

and tell me what is up there to explode....FDNY knows what is there....and the majority state "explosions NOT consistent with office fires'....NO gas lines or combustibles in the towers....Class 'A' type buildings do not allow that...maybe cans of computer air huh!!!!

People in the "truth" movement need to realize that hearing explosions does not signify explosives. In easier terms: Hearing kaboom =/= bomb. Simple?

people in the 'truth' movement are ASKING questions and DEMANDING the supporting evidence of the claims pushed as truth....I need NO evidence to do this.....you do.

the 2005 NIST did not investigate for explosives or accelerants....their parameter was only impact damage and fire....people whom support that OFFICIAL CLAIM from this 2008 hypothesis crew, that "NONE were there for the ENTIRE day", is based on 26 SECONDS of collapse video.....and need their f/n heads examined...or at the least, lopped off.

[NCSTAR1A 4.3.4] Basing the decision of "No explosives or accelerants were used" on videos that were recorded at the time of collapse. Based on visual and audio evidence and the use of specialized computer modeling...NIST concluded that a blast event did not occur

yes your Honor.....we have direct evidence based on these collapse videos that no explosives or accelerants were used the entire day.....but we are NOT gonna show you that data...[just trust us].

....lol....."SPECIALIZED" computer modeling!!!!!!

Presenting a claim within a scientific context by using NOTHING to validate the claim, is called BULL#!

...no matter who says it.

and TWO airliners burning!!

to which the 2005 NIST found caused LITTLE damage to each tower....less than 15%, and NO supporting evidence the FIRES PRESENT allowed the collapse to occur.

there are many NON-bomb/NON-explosive sources of "explosions" that one would expect in such a large fire. I wish I wish I wish people would get that through their thick skulls.

again, you assert but forget to FOLLOW THROUGH!!!

tell me what 'combustible' is capable of explaining what they all hear.....

a reply to: hgfbob

Not so much.
But I do see a lot of deflection above, not from me however.
I bet it's not even intentional.

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: hgfbob

Not so much.
But I do see a lot of deflection above, not from me however.
I bet it's not even intentional.

cause GenRad beat ya to the punch.....so...hey, ya got a bunker site quote for me to dig yerself out??????

why are you here?......it's more than obvious..I just want to hear it from you.

resorting to ranting, gross generalization, wanton ignorance, and mindless ranting rejurgitation verbatum of party lines.

to which YOU can not show where this is...

I post taught science that YOU state is wrong.....that you can't correct even though you see it wrong...

I post direct quotes from the 10,000+ page NIST report which YOU say is WRONG, ...lol..then you inject bunker site rhetoric against those FACTS found by the 2005 NIST scientific investigation..

and then when cornered, you try and throw a 'blanket' over the entirety.....resolved to posting one/two lines of crap/distractions.

wanna prove the witnesses wrong, PROVE the science supporting the witnesses WRONG!

wanna prove everything wrong.....then provide the supporting evidence of the official claims pushed as truth.

a reply to: hgfbob

No, you didn't.
You went off on a rant referencing the broad topical word of science.
A deeply flawed and quite frankly mind boggling in it's obsessive capacity rant of pure deflection.
Funny how the NIST report is you "truthers" strawman rant of choice though.
Even when your opponent does not reference it.

When I was talking about science I was obviously talking about neuroscience.
You know, the subject one would naturally be talking about when talking about memory encoding and recall.

How you could miss that is, well, unfortunately, understandable now.
You aren't doing your cause any favors here.

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

I was obviously talking about neuroscience.

no, you are attempting to label with No authority to do so.

label them as crazy.

funny, the majority supports 'explosions', and very few support..'pancakes'....and you want to discredit the majority cause they don't 'conform'..

I guess according to you, witnesses are absolutely of NO use when they don't see what you want them to see....

any comment about FDNY Angel Rivera and him witnessing WTC3 blowing up before any tower collapses.....very clear timeline..one the City forgot to 'BLACK OUT' with magic marker....did ya read the transcript I linked to?

a reply to: hgfbob

You know.
If I didn't have such a admittedly cruudy opinion of humanity in general.
I would have to conclude that your general inability to follow what is actually being said to you was intentional.
Making you a disinformation agent and lending credence to the theory that the government is actively trying to hide something.
But, I do, so I don't.
All well.

As you may know, Due to member demand, the 9/11 forum is now under close staff scrutiny.
Closed for review.