The Final Minutes of the South Tower - The flaming inferno

Originally posted by jthomas

You haven't been fed "stories". You've been given evidence. But since 9/11 Truthers like to claim that there is nothing but "stories" that allows them to claim whatever they want as "stories", play them off each other, and ignore all that evidence that is inconvenient to the 9/11 Truth Movement.

It has happened since day one and it happens in threads here all the time.

Do you realize what something like that would mean? Can I ask for a 512th time what you would call a story told by officials?

Answered. Read again.

This is like talking to a rock. You are the one that said the stories do not match up. I am asking you what contradictions you are speaking of? This is your story, not mine. You are the one promoting it, not me. How about you tell me why you believe it if it is so full of contradictions. If you want to change the word from "stories" to "evidence" then fine. The point remains the same. You just said that the whole picture is full of contradictions. Care to point them out?

No, not answered. Read the question a few more times because you have never answered it EVER.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

This is like talking to a rock. You are the one that said the stories do not match up. I am asking you what contradictions you are speaking of? This is your story, not mine. You are the one promoting it, not me. How about you tell me why you believe it if it is so full of contradictions. If you want to change the word from "stories" to "evidence" then fine. The point remains the same. You just said that the whole picture is full of contradictions. Care to point them out?

The OP of this thread is a perfect example.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
This is like talking to a rock.

You can't communicate because you are starting at different points.

You are starting at concrete evidence.

He is starting at the conclusion (the official story). He assume that the official story is the true story and judges all the evidence from that perspective.

He considers the official story to BE evidence.

You however are looking for the concrete pieces of evidence that put together create the official story.

You can't communicate because you don't accept an explanation of evidence to be evidence.

Anyone that doesn't accept an explanation from a respected official to be evidence is obviously a crazy conspiracy theorist...

Isn't it interesting the South Tower collapsed just two short minutes after Chief Orio reached the vicinity of the alleged impact area? The South Tower was the second building hit and had been burning for approximately 19 minutes less than the North Tower, which at the time was still standing. I guess those oxygen starved jet fuel fires in the South Tire were hotter than those in the North Tower.

Isn't it also interesting the final two minutes of the FDNY dispatch recording is blank? This happened right after Chief Orio arrived near the impact location where he reported numerous casualties. Why would he stop communicating at this very critical juncture? Did something happen to Chief Orio, making him incapable of communicating? Why did the radios just happen to fail at this critical time? Why are the other units not communicating as well?

Was the recording tampered with to prevent certain information such as sounds of explosives or potentially damning eyewitness accounts of the accident location from becoming public? Why was the City of New York so reluctant to release these tapes (releasing them only after a lawsuit by NYT and victim's families)? Why did the Port Authority request a confidentiality agreement be signed by FDNY, who refused possession of the tapes on these grounds?

Finally and probably most importantly, how was Cheif Orio even able to get near the impact area when we were told the area was hot enough to melt...errrr...soften the huge steel support columns?

I wonder what the next flavor of the week crackpot theory will enter the ever changing 9/11 Narrative served to you by Government Officials and marketed by a shallow and vapid mainstream media which has abandoned all investigative principles and ethics.

reply to post by SphinxMontreal

Isn't it interesting the South Tower collapsed just two short minutes after Chief Orio reached the vicinity of the alleged impact area? The South Tower was the second building hit and had been burning for approximately 19 minutes less than the North Tower, which at the time was still standing. I guess those oxygen starved jet fuel fires in the South Tire were hotter than those in the North Tower.
[/quote

For one it is ORIO PALMER not Orio

So is there some conspiracy to the fact that Chief Palmer reached the impact zone ?

Reason Palmer got that far was do to fact the

1) Palmer had been stationed in Lower Manhattan and often responded to alarms at WTC - he knew layout of building and elevators

2) There was freight elevator which ran to 40th floor having climb up

3) Palmer as a chief was less emcimbered than other FF - he would be wearing stanadard FDNY turnout gear including SCBA weighing in at
around 55-60 lbs. He would not be carrying hose rolls of tools

4) Palmer was one of the fittest men in FDNY who ran 10K races and half
marathons

Palmer was also not alone - Fire Marshal Ronald Bucca had made it to the 78th floor

Until the building's final minutes, one of the two firefighters, Battalion Chief Orio J. Palmer, was organizing the evacuation of people hurt by the plane's impact. He was accompanied by Fire Marshal Ronald P. Bucca. Both men died.

Bucca and his partner Jimmy Devery had run up the stairs from the ground

As a fire marshal Bucca would be even less emcumbered than usual FDNY
men - most likely wearing helmet, turnout coat and possibly pants. No
SCBA

As men climbed up Devery began to lag behind - around 51th floor encountered group of injured survivors coming down . Devery stopped to take care of them and lead them down . Bucca continued up

As Ling Young, another survivor of the 78th floor, made her way down, she passed two fire marshals, Mr. Bucca and James Devery. They had climbed the stairs from the lobby because they did not know about the elevator that ran to the 41st floor. "Ronnie was ahead of me, like a flight, at all times - he was just in better shape," Mr. Devery said in an interview. "And then on the 51st floor there was a woman standing there on the stairwell landing and she had her arms out and her eyes were closed. And she was bleeding from the side." That was Mrs. Young, and she seemed ready to faint, he recalled, so he decided to escort her out.

As been pointed out 78th floor is sky lobby - full of elevator machinery, few offices to burn. Bulk of fires were several floors ABOVE them on 80st
to 84th floors

Palmer, Bucca and others didn't get that far to witness what was going on

Another thing is radio discipline - you do not conduct a running commentary, just report what you see and keep channel clear

Originally posted by jthomas
So your definition of the 9/11 Commission Report is an "official story"; media reports are "official storires"; and the NIST Reports are "official stories."

No, as told by the people that still beleive the so called offical story it comes from a combination of the 9/11 commission report, media and agenciaes like NIST.

So now your saying the 9/11 commission report is not offical? The media stories are not official? NIST and FEMA reports are not official?

What happens when these so-called "stories" are at variance with one another?

Well then we know the so called official story has holes in it.

How do you determine which one is the "correct story" or if any of them are correct? How do you know?

Thats why i keep asking people who believe the official story for evidence to support it.

From where does the evidence come?

What evidence? I have yet to see any real evidence to support the official story.

But there is also the evidence that is available.

Again what evidence?

So, how does that all work and how do you resolve "stories" that are at variance with one another?

By something called research.

[edit on 22-3-2010 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by jthomas
So your definition of the 9/11 Commission Report is an "official story"; media reports are "official storires"; and the NIST Reports are "official stories."

No, as told by the people that still beleive the so called offical story it comes from a combination of the 9/11 commission report, media and agenciaes like NIST.

So now your saying the 9/11 commission report is not offical? The media stories are not official? NIST and FEMA reports are not official?

The term "official story" is the 9/11 Truth Movement's concoction. The 9/11 Commission Report and the NIST Investigation Reports are not "stories" but reports based on evidence. Media "stories" are not "official".

What happens when these so-called "stories" are at variance with one another?

Well then we know the so called official story has holes in it.

We see from above that your definition of "official story" is what you want it to be.

How do you determine which one is the "correct story" or if any of them are correct? How do you know?

Thats why i keep asking people who believe the official story for evidence to support it.

We can't believe something for which you make up any definition you want to mean "official story." We see how the term is really meaningless and that the 9/11 Truth Movement routinely uses the term to claim there are "contradictions" in an "official story" where none exist in the actual evidence - as we see in the very OP of this thread. It is a very convenient propaganda term for the 9/11 Truth Movement, flexible in its meaning even when the 9/11 Truth Movement uses it to mean contradictory things, and convenient to hide behind.

From where does the evidence come?

What evidence? I have yet to see any real evidence to support the official story.

Since the term "official story" has no real meaning, then real evidence doesn't have to exist for you, nor when you admit it exists, you can ignore itby claiming some aspect of the "official story" contradicts it, exactly the fallacious technique used by ae911truth.org in the recruitment video in the OP of this thread.

But there is also the evidence that is available.

Again what evidence?

For instance, the recording of the NYFD firemen that ae911truth.org uses in its video in the OP. Apparently, this doesn't constitute evidence to you even though ae911truth.org "uses" it as evidence.

So, how does that all work and how do you resolve "stories" that are at variance with one another?

By something called research.

Which I did long ago showing how the term "official story" is the 9/11 Truth Movement's favorite canard and makes it think it can misuse evidence as ae911truth did in the video in the OP of this thread. I caught that early on as I showed you earlier.

Originally posted by jthomas
The term "official story" is the 9/11 Truth Movement's concoction. The 9/11 Commission Report and the NIST Investigation Reports are not "stories" but reports based on evidence. Media "stories" are not "official".

But the 9/11 commssion report and NIST reportas have all been questiosned with evidence that show reasonable doubt.

So your saying the 9/11 commission report, NIST reports and the media are all wrong?

Also your saying that the anything the media states is not official and should not be believed? Even though mopst people that live in a fantasy world still want to believe evrythign the media states.

We see from above that your definition of "official story" is what you want it to be.

So what story is it then that people so want to beleive if its not from the 9/11 commission, NIST and the the media.

We can't believe something for which you make up any definition you want to mean "official story."

Well so tell me what the offical story is then, i mean everyone keeps stating they beleive the official story so what is it?

For instance, the recording of the NYFD firemen that ae911truth.org uses in its video in the OP.

I am still waiting for evidnece that people keep using to support the official story they keep stating is real.

Which I did long ago showing how the term "official story" is the 9/11 Truth Movement's favorite canard and makes it think it can misuse evidence as ae911truth did in the video in the OP of this thread.

So again what is the official story that everyone uses to state they know what happened, you know the official story that has no evidence to support it?



[edit on 22-3-2010 by REMISNE]

reply to post by jthomas


The "Official Story" is exactly the story I was given by Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Bush - government officials. If you can suggest a better thing to call that story told by officials then I am all ears.

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by jthomas
The term "official story" is the 9/11 Truth Movement's concoction. The 9/11 Commission Report and the NIST Investigation Reports are not "stories" but reports based on evidence. Media "stories" are not "official".

But the 9/11 commssion report and NIST reportas have all been questiosned with evidence that show reasonable doubt.

Reasonable doubt of just what? You said they had no evidence becuase it was "locked up." So now you are saying they had evidence?

Which one is it? You should resolve that internal contradiction first.

Then you can tell us if the recordings of the NYFD firemen in the video in the OP is evidence or not.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
reply to post by jthomas

 

The "Official Story" is exactly the story I was given by Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Bush - government officials. If you can suggest a better thing to call that story told by officials then I am all ears.

So you have a different definition of the so-called "official story." Meanwhile, what does the evidence actually tell us?

According to the all mighty Wikipedia:

The Official Story (Spanish: La historia oficial) is a 1985 Argentine drama film directed by Luis Puenzo, and written by Puenzo and Aída Bortnik. It stars Norma Aleandro, Héctor Alterio, and Chunchuna Villafañe, among others. In the United Kingdom, it was released as The Official Version.[1][2]

The film is about an upper middle class couple in Buenos Aires with an adopted child. The mother comes to realize that her daughter may be the child of a desaparecido, a victim of the forced disappearances that occurred during Argentina's Dirty War in the 1970s.

There you go JThomas, since you don't know what the official story is, and your obviously not trying to find what the official story is, and then you claimed that the official story doesn't even exist (that is my favorite). I thought I would google it for you and click on the first search result, seeing as to how that is the amount of effort your putting in to understanding others theories, I found it fitting that this be the amount of effort I put into yours...

I would think that the "official report" would be synonymous with www.9-11commission.gov... but what do I know lol.

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
reply to post by jthomas

 

The "Official Story" is exactly the story I was given by Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Bush - government officials. If you can suggest a better thing to call that story told by officials then I am all ears.

So you have a different definition of the so-called "official story." Meanwhile, what does the evidence actually tell us?

Different definition? You said there is no such thing so what was your definition exactly?

Why are you purposely being so obtuse? A government official tells a story on the record and that is an official story. What is it you are missing?

Originally posted by jthomas
Meanwhile, what does the evidence actually tell us?

It tells us that the official story is a physical impossibility.

The contradictions, anomalies, coincidences, first-time events, and other phenomena have never been explained.

Unknown variables must be a factor.

However, it is unnecessary to speculate on alternative theories; what is important is that the official story unsubstantiated.

Originally posted by arpanet

There you go JThomas, since you don't know what the official story is, ...

But I do, I've stated it, and others here are confirming what I stated.

The "official story" is whatever the 9/11 Truth Movement wants it to be, and a very good example is the subject of this OP, what ae911truth.org claims two different versions of the "official story" are, that they are "mutually exclusive" and to hell with the actual evidence. And they do it to convince the unaware to join their group and send money.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
reply to post by jthomas

 

The "Official Story" is exactly the story I was given by Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Bush - government officials. If you can suggest a better thing to call that story told by officials then I am all ears.

So you have a different definition of the so-called "official story." Meanwhile, what does the evidence actually tell us?

Different definition? You said there is no such thing so what was your definition exactly?

I said he had a different definition and did you not note my scare quotes around the term?

Originally posted by jthomas
I said he had a different definition and did you not note my scare quotes around the term?

No you did not. That is just a blatant lie.

Did you think I was unable to scroll up?

originally posted by jthomas
So you have a different definition of the so-called

I also have no clue what "scare quotes" are.

Please explain to me why anyone should not have you on ignore if you are going to troll boards lying so blatantly?

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by jthomas
I said he had a different definition and did you not note my scare quotes around the term?

No you did not. That is just a blatant lie.

I meant "you". You have a different definition than the others.

I also have no clue what "scare quotes" are.

Try googling it.

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by jthomas
I said he had a different definition and did you not note my scare quotes around the term?

No you did not. That is just a blatant lie.

I meant "you". You have a different definition than the others.

I also have no clue what "scare quotes" are.

Try googling it.

LOL, do you even know what you are talking about anymore? You said "you" and I responded to you saying "you." You just defended it by saying you did not say "you" but "he." Now you are saying you meant "you?" When, when you wrote "you" and I responded to it? Seriously you are not making any sense at all but if you want to run in circles...

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by jthomas
I said he had a different definition and did you not note my scare quotes around the term?

No you did not. That is just a blatant lie.

I meant "you". You have a different definition than the others.

Let's try this again then. You said "you." I responded to "you" This was that response.
"Different definition? You said there is no such thing so what was your definition exactly?

Why are you purposely being so obtuse? A government official tells a story on the record and that is an official story. What is it you are missing? "

No your last response to this was to say that you said "he." Care to try again?