The Franklin Square and Munson Fire Department Opens a New Investigation Into 9/11

#2
This is groundbreaking stuff, folks. One of the departments on the ground during the 9/11 attacks claims to have evidence of pre-planted explosives on WTC 7.

Resolution starts in 5 minutes
What evidence? There isn't any.

The motion is a political stunt by the commissioners (who are not fire fighters, explosive experts, etc).

This will go nowhere because there is nothing to it. Anyone can see that the buildings collapsed beginning at the level of the fire. It's right there on film from several angles for chrissake.

"Well I don't understand how a building can fall straight down without explosives and controlled demolition" is not a serious argument. There are many things that you and I don't understand yet are real and we accept them as such. But that argument is also ignorant of how controlled demolition works (hint; it doesn't start 3/4 of the way up the building).
 
Last edited:
#3
Well I don't understand how a building can fall straight down without explosives and controlled demolition" is not a serious argument. There are many things that you and I don't understand yet are real and we accept them as such. But that argument is also ignorant of how controlled demolition works (hint; it doesn't start 3/4 of the way up the building).
Eric, sorry, but Building 7 is a complete deal breaker for a lot of people whose contemporary understanding of the physics of how buildings fall down does not match with the official record. You need only look at the BBC footage of Building 7 collapsing and check the time line. There is No Way this collapse had anything to do with the towers being hit by planes.

I have spent many hours reviewing arguments and theories about 9/11. It is a deep hole to get into, and I am deeply suspicious of conspiracy theories. Even if I dismissed everything else, Building 7 gets me. Its a controlled demolition. I accept the evidence of experts on this. Plus that's exactly what it looks like to me. That means not only foreknowledge but intent to profit (and that, I think, was the undoing of the act).

All the other stuff about 9/11 may or may not be true and real. But the intentional demolition of Building 7 is something I am persuaded about. Show me I am wrong. Just don't deny it on sentiment. Convince me I have it wrong on evidence and argument.
 
#4
Eric, sorry, but Building 7 is a complete deal breaker for a lot of people whose contemporary understanding of the physics of how buildings fall down does not match with the official record. You need only look at the BBC footage of Building 7 collapsing and check the time line. There is No Way this collapse had anything to do with the towers being hit by planes.

I have spent many hours reviewing arguments and theories about 9/11. It is a deep hole to get into, and I am deeply suspicious of conspiracy theories. Even if I dismissed everything else, Building 7 gets me. Its a controlled demolition. I accept the evidence of experts on this. Plus that's exactly what it looks like to me. That means not only foreknowledge but intent to profit (and that, I think, was the undoing of the act).

All the other stuff about 9/11 may or may not be true and real. But the intentional demolition of Building 7 is something I am persuaded about. Show me I am wrong. Just don't deny it on sentiment. Convince me I have it wrong on evidence and argument.
Sorry Michael,
Not with you on this one. There are perfectly good explanations , by experts, for why building 7 came down as it did that don't involve conspiracies. The explanations are readily available.

The building burned uncontrolled for hours. The fires - there were several in different locations in the building - started due to burning debris blown through the main building. Can we at least agree on that? I mean there's video of building 7 burning and plenty of testimony from those in charge that it was left to burn and why.

Can we agree that if you heat steel sufficiently, it weakens? If you have trouble with that concept, talk to a blacksmith. You don't need a structural engineer.

So now we have a building burning out of control for hours with fires in several locations. We know that steel weakens when sufficiently heated (we're not talking about melting, but becoming pliant). All we're left with is how such a building would fall. The somewhat unique structural design of the towers (including building 7) can completely explain the buildings falling as we all saw them fall.

Case closed.
 
Last edited:
#5
Sorry Michael,
Not with you on this one. There are perfectly good explanations , by experts, for why building 7 came down as it did that don't involve conspiracies. The explanations are readily available.

The building burned uncontrolled for hours. The fires - there were several in different locations in the building - started due to burning debris blown through the main building. Can we at least agree on that? I mean there's video of building 7 burning and plenty of testimony from those in charge that it was left to burn and why.

Can we agree that if you heat steel sufficiently, it weakens? If you have trouble with that concept, talk to a blacksmith. You don't need a structural engineer.

So now we have a building burning out of control for hours with fires in several locations. We know that steel weakens when sufficiently heated (we're not talking about melting, but becoming pliant). All we're left with is how such a building would fall. The somewhat unique structural design of the towers (including building 7) can completely explain the buildings falling as we all saw them fall.

Case closed.
Hey, Eric. Thanks for your opinion. It's fine and healthy to be skeptical of official and conspiracy narratives. I just want to make sure I understand your position correctly. You think there was no cover up at all, and everything happened as the government say it did? It's fine if you think this, but then you would be ignoring a large amount of circumstantial evidence, such as the fact that the Pentagon has only one video of the plane crashing into it, despite having cameras at a nearby gas station and around the perimeter that could have given a clearer view? What about the SEC investigating insider trading related to 9/11? The missing trillion dollars that occurred the day before? And the fact that the plane hit the accounting wing of the Pentagon? The fact that NORAD was issued a stand-down order according to Norman Maneta? The fact that Sigel Edmonds, an FBI agent, was issued a gag order concerning foreknowledge of an attack that would take place on September 11th? The fact that Mohammed Atta was, by all accounts, a terrible pilot that managed to pull off advanced flying maneuvers?
 
#6
Hey, Eric. Thanks for your opinion. It's fine and healthy to be skeptical of official and conspiracy narratives. I just want to make sure I understand your position correctly. You think there was no cover up at all, and everything happened as the government say it did?
Yes.

It's fine if you think this, but then you would be ignoring a large amount of circumstantial evidence
There's a reason circumstantial evidence is not consider good evidence in the legal/justice system. A lot of what you and other conspiracy theorists cite is not even good circumstantial evidence. Indeed a lot is misinformation.

such as the fact that the Pentagon has only one video of the plane crashing into it, despite having cameras at a nearby gas station and around the perimeter that could have given a clearer view?
I know someone who saw the plane attacking the Pentagon from across the road at the Naval Annex building. In fact, there are witnesses of record who saw the same thing from the same location. So you don't need to take my word for it. Why would a gas station camera be positioned so as to see a fast moving plane hitting the Pentagon? Wouldn't a gas station cam be to observe human activity at the gas station?

You have to account for the eye witness testimony that it was an airplane, the downed light posts, etc. https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/10/07/bringing-closure-to-the-911-pentagon-debate/

What about the SEC investigating insider trading related to 9/11? ?
What about it? Someone blew up buildings, crashed airplanes and killed thousands to cover up insider trading? Yeah. Sure. That happens every day. There are no back up trading records? This theory doesn't pass even a cursory sniff tests. It is totally ignorant of how the world works. Insider trading is a common occurrence as are related investigations.

The missing trillion dollars that occurred the day before?
There were - and are - no missing $trillions. The Rumsfeld quote that conspiracy theorists repeat is truncated, no doubt deliberately, to foment conspiracy theories. The rest of the quote clearly defines Rumsfeld's concerns as not that $trillions are literally missing, but that it is all accounted for on antiquated systems that don't talk to each other. He was asking for modern integrated systems from which he could efficiently obtain a complete accounting picture.

How would blowing up airplanes and buildings and killing thousands make the theft of $trillions disappear? Why would Rumsfeld publicly discuss a massive theft of unprecedented scope? Wouldn't these same dastardly villains kill Rumsfeld for doing so? Where are the $trillions supposed to have come from? $21 trillion (or whatever the amount is supposed to be) is bigger than the country's entire GDP. This is very silly. Go read the full Rumsfeld quote and the context in which it was delivered.

And the fact that the plane hit the accounting wing of the Pentagon??
There is no "accounting wing" of the Pentagon. Each sector has an accounting or budgeting team. Anywhere you hit, you'd end up hitting some sector's budget team. It was the Naval Command Center that got hit badly at the Pentagon. You are consuming bad info.

What is the theory here? That all of the records are kept on paper with no back-ups? Why not just shred the paper?

The fact that NORAD was issued a stand-down order according to Norman Maneta?
These things happen all of the time. There has been very reasonable explanations offered for this.

The fact that Sigel Edmonds, an FBI agent, was issued a gag order concerning foreknowledge of an attack that would take place on September 11th?
That is conspiracy theory mythology as far as I can tell. In reality, Edmonds worked for the FBI for six months from late September 2001 until March 2002. Edmonds was hired, as a contractor, to work as an interpreter in the translations unit of the FBI in Washington on 13 September, 15 September, or 20 September 2001. Among her main roles was to translate covertly recorded conversations by Turkish diplomatic and political targets.

The fact that Mohammed Atta was, by all accounts, a terrible pilot that managed to pull off advanced flying maneuvers?
What advanced maneuvers? That is someone's opinion. Others, who are pilots say the flying was not beyond Atta's training and ability in the least bit.

BTW - I am not one that automatically believes whatever I am told by the government. I am on the record during the build up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, stating that the idea of WMD and Al Qaeda links was a lie and that the "intelligence" was being stovepiped through some compartments hand picked to be biased toward creating a cause for war. That was a real life honest to goodness conspiracy and those involved should be prosecuted. The "facts" being presented at the time were obvious BS to anyone with a little knowledge and half a brain. I was right.

I also called the Trump/Russia collusion and Russian interference in the election as BS (right again!).

I called the Assad as bad guy and jihadists as freedom fighters meme that our leaders were spreading as BS (once again correct!). In fact, I called the whole Arab Spring cheerleading as stupid and wrong headed.

In the case of 911 it is the conspiracy theorists that are lying and presenting BS as facts, as should be obvious to anyone with a little knowledge and half a brain.
 
Last edited:
Top