In Memory of Kevin Cosgrove

Listener discretion is advised.



Buildings should not have come down - this man and so many more should have been saved.

So unnecessary.

And for what - what in the end did it accomplish..?


"...sacrificed, on the alter, of freedom."
~ Rudolf Guiliani, 9/11 memorial service, 2003

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Buildings should not have come down - this man and so many more should have been saved.

It doesn't get much more truthful than this.

* Those buildings were designed to sustain aircraft impacts.

* According to NIST's original calculations, there was only minimal damage to the structure in the impact zones.

* Fires that have burned for far longer have never brought down a steel-structured highrise.


Those buildings should still be standing today and either be repaired or disassembled. And everyone that was alive should've gotten out alive.

The victims will never be forgotten.

For some reason I woke up this morning thinking of him, then went outside to behold the most beautiful fall day I've seen in ages.

So I felt I'd post here on him - let him be in our hearts and memories. He represents perfectly in his plight that day, all the victims.

And the firemen, who were setting out to put down the fires in the south tower - when the buildings were brought down on their heads, to them also!

reply to post by NewAgeMan


What a beautiful thread.

Lest,we forget, indeed.

That video has haunted me since It was first put out. It's very difficult to get out of your head. I think of this poor man and all the other victoms of this atrocity and they will remain in my heart forever.

Absolutely valid. May I add a question? My 12 year old has virtually no idea what 9/11 is, how it changed his life just as he was beginning it, what the world was like before, and certainly no true comprehension of the thousands of heroes and victims. How do we teach such a concept to his and future generations, or is it destined to become a more and more distant memory as those of us who lived it get older?

reply to post by samstone11

Have faith, that a generation from now, grade 10 physics students will show, time and again, armed with nothing buit a stopwatch and a few basic laws of physics, that the actual truth is that while the planes did impact the builders, they were not the sole cause of those building's destruction. Otherwise the whole of modern history of the 21st century ends up getting built on a blatant American lie of the fathest reaching proportions. Some fine day Zelikow's alternative universe will simply collapse at the near rate of free-fall relative to nothing more, or less, than the truth and reality itself. I fear for the perpetrators, in so far as the objective reality is now known to record everything from every angle and perspective, including Kevin Cosgrove's, and having a sense for the guy, from listening to the tape, he'd want a little more justice than the killing of Osama bin Laden..

It's very heavy stuff, the truth.

And now here we stand at the end of the post-modern era and the cusp of the technological, globalized age, looking back on it, in the eyes of near 20/20 historical hindsight, helluva thing for the meager "9/11 truth movement" to uphold for the sake of all future history.

History, like the truth, has this tendancy of coming back 'round full circle in one form of another. Justice in this case is therefore what I would call historical justice, in the form of people looking back on it accurately, regardless of what the "MSM" tries to say, and they are all but discredited at this point for the most part.

The Internet - it's what the elite and the perps never factored into the equation in their "history making" process.

I say well done 9/11 truth movement in whatever form to you for holding sway at the gate of truth and reality, so that future generations might one day begin to pass into a new domain of everlasting life and freedom based in the truth and reality as it really and truly is.

Some day we'll find the cancer that caused this whole fiasco, and root it out. The truth will come to power. Then it will be a new day.

Please flag this thread, not for me, but to keep it in everyone's awareness perhaps especially the "debunkers" so as to increase their awareness of precisely what it is they are defending and trying to uphold in the historical record and the record of public opinion. What would Kevin want..? I think he'd want people to know precisely how and why he died, so that history, when looking back might LEARN something, about what NOT to do and how NOT to be, and in so doing, by serving as a point of great historical learning, serve the cause of truth and justice.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
"... about what NOT to do and how NOT to be,...

Well...could you educate us on what NOT to do and how NOT to be?

reply to post by _BoneZ_


BoneZ, its been said before.

The building DID withstand the impact. They stood for almost an hour before succumbing to the combination of damage AND fire.

Where can I find this account that NIST said the aircraft damage was minimal? Was this before the actual investigation? Or well after?

Yes, BoneZ, there have been fires where the buildings survived. However, there are not that many buildings to compare to that were hit at high speed by 767 airliners, and had designs exactly like the WTC. But also, there have been many instances where steel structures have failed, even rapidly failed, from alone. This means without an aircraft impact. Why is it that you and many in the 9/11 Truth Movement like to ignore the aircraft impact or the fires whenever you see fit?

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by _BoneZ_

 

BoneZ, its been said before.

The building DID withstand the impact. They stood for almost an hour before succumbing to the combination of damage AND fire.

Where can I find this account that NIST said the aircraft damage was minimal? Was this before the actual investigation? Or well after?

I'd like to know that as well. NIST said the aircraft damage by itself wasn't enough to bring the towers down (it was in conjuction with the fires and the unique design of the building), but to my knowledge they never said it was "minimal".

Not that it matters, as I myself subscribe to the Purdue model that claims the incompressible liquids aboard the craft (I.E. fuel) acted like a wrecking ball on the structure and caused more interior damage than NIST took into account. I've been hit by four foot waves and it felt like being hit by a stone wall, so I know first hand it cannot be discounted.

I think those who have all the info and who persist in supporting and defending the official story about the twin towers, ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

 

I think those who have all the info and who persist in supporting and defending the official story about the twin towers, ought to be ashamed of themselves.

That describes con artists like Richard Gage and his AE911truth media empire more than it does anyone else. He's notorious for claiming the towers fell "almost in its own footprint" and yet I see in that very video you posted at .12 a monstrous section of building toppling over and falling over to the right of the building. That was almost certainly a section of the side of the building being sheared off and away from the building, which never happens in actual cases of controlled demolitions.

Thank you. I hadn't noticed that bit of fakery from Gage before. I am keeping that video for future reference.

Originally posted by samstone11
Absolutely valid. May I add a question? My 12 year old has virtually no idea what 9/11 is, how it changed his life just as he was beginning it, what the world was like before, and certainly no true comprehension of the thousands of heroes and victims. How do we teach such a concept to his and future generations, or is it destined to become a more and more distant memory as those of us who lived it get older?

I regret to say you can't. The whole reason why the events of 9/11 have such an emotional impact for us is because we lived through it and we experienced a rush of emotions that can't be put into the history books. It's the same as our parents living through the JFK assassination and their parents living through the Pearl Harbor attack. They lived through it and they experienced the fear and the confusion first hand, but for us they're simply events we learned in a history book. I hate to say it, but the 9/11 attack is going to be something future generations will have the same kind of emotional detachment to.

Ummm, am I the only one suddenly feeling old right about now? Sigh...

reply to post by GoodOlDave

There'd never been a top-down CD before and if you want to talk about the explosively ejecting building material, then you might note that half way down the destruction sequence, there's nothing above the remaining structure and yet the wave of destruction continues down through the path of maximal resistence without any appreciable loss of momentum, to within mere seconds of absolute freefall for any freely dropped object in nothing but AIR, which is why I call the official story (absent explosives) "the foot of God hypothesis".

Your avatar is interesting, a flying dragon guarding and protecting the castle. I don't know how you do what you do Dave.. (shaking head in dismay).

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

There'd never been a top-down CD before and if you want to talk about the explosively ejecting building material, then you might note that half way down the destruction sequence, there's nothing above the remaining structure and yet the wave of destruction continues down through the path of maximal resistence without any appreciable loss of momentum, to within mere seconds of absolute freefall for any freely dropped object in nothing but AIR, which is why I call the official story (absent explosives) "the foot of God hypothesis".

So in other words, EXCEPT for the top down procession of the collapse and EXCEPT for all the large amounts of wreckage being peeled off like it was a banana peel and EXCEPT for the fact there are no explosive flashes and EXCEPT for the fact that not a single det cord, primer cable, or evidence of damage from explosives was found in the wreckage and EXCEPT for the building starting to collapse at the precise point where the plane impacted the building and EXCEPT for this and EXCEPT for that, yes, it looked like a controlled demolition. Is this really what you're trying to say?

I'm not saying the way the towers collapsed wasn't a weird occurance, and I'm definitely not saying the gov't isn't covering up some type of dirty laundry. What I'm saying is that the building wasn't brought down by any secret controlled demolitions and you're simply being suckered by a bunch of internet hucksters. Tell me, when you first watched that flick from AE911truth, did you even notice that monstrous hunk of building being peeled off, ten seconds into the video? Gage certainly knows it's there; he simply wants your money and he doesn't care if his own evidence contradicts his conspiracy stories.

Your avatar is interesting, a flying dragon guarding and protecting the castle. I don't know how you do what you do Dave.. (shaking head in dismay).

Oh that's easy, using Google I first do a search for a GIF of a castle and then I do a search for an animated GIF of a flying dragon and then I upload them both to ATS (grin)...

reply to post by GoodOlDave


It is like that every time. Those in the Truth Movement say, "Oh, the WTC could not have collapsed cause they were built to survive plane impacts." There they ignore the fires that resulted after the impacts. Then they say, "Oh, fires could not have brought down the WTCs." Well there, they ignore the plane that impacted the tower. Then they say, "Oh, the office fires cannot do all that damage alone." Well they now ignore the airplane burning inside, the jet fuel from the airplane, and the fact that "regular" office fires regularly do get hot enough to cause damage to steel rapidly.

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

It is like that every time. Those in the Truth Movement say, "Oh, the WTC could not have collapsed cause they were built to survive plane impacts." There they ignore the fires that resulted after the impacts. Then they say, "Oh, fires could not have brought down the WTCs." Well there, they ignore the plane that impacted the tower. Then they say, "Oh, the office fires cannot do all that damage alone." Well they now ignore the airplane burning inside, the jet fuel from the airplane, and the fact that "regular" office fires regularly do get hot enough to cause damage to steel rapidly.

My personal favorite is "We cannot believe anything the NIST report says", and then in the very next post, "The NIST report says the plane impacts didn't cause enough damage for the building to collapse".

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Your avatar is interesting, a flying dragon guarding and protecting the castle. I don't know how you do what you do Dave.. (shaking head in dismay).

Oh that's easy, using Google I first do a search for a GIF of a castle and then I do a search for an animated GIF of a flying dragon and then I upload them both to ATS (grin)...

Please review the OP again, and then consider the nature of the castle you guard, as a dragon..