Recently, a debunker named unclesamsnephew666 has taken it upon himself to comment on my recent film- World Trade Center 7: An Engineered Collapse. I've encountered him before and was curious as to what he thought. Here was our "discussion."Viewer discretion is advised. The language is a bit obscene.
(I posted as my Youtube account, Citizenfor911Truth1)
Started with a quote he put on part 21 of my wtc7 film:
_______________________________________________
unclesam:
where do you go from here? how about you go fuck yourselves for spread lies and misinformation, for defending jihadists, and for shitting on the graves of 3000 people.
that's where you should go from here, bullshit artist asswipe followers of alex jones and jason bermas.
there are dozens of quotes from firemen who say the fire was huge and FDNY predicted hours in advance that 7 was going to collapse.
have the balls to say they were in on it, or explain them away, truthtards.
_________________________________________________
I responded and we went from there:
Citizen:
First of all, I'd appreciate it if you'd use better language on my videos. Second, I do not believe the fire fighters were in on it. And third, this issue has already been thoroughly explained in this article:
Waiting for Seven: WTC 7 Collapse Warnings in the FDNY Oral Histories
Make sure to explain that away.
unclesam:
"this issue has already been thoroughly explained in this article"
WAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAA!!!!
that article settles NOTHING for truthers. just another thread to cling to.
just how fucking bad do you truthtards want this idiocy to be true?
its like if any of you just admitted alex jones and jason bermas and the rest of the truthtard "leaders" you've been duped by are frauds, you'd die or something.
you wont die if you face reality. I promise.
Citizen:
If the article truly settles nothing, then you should have no problem refuting every point it makes. Or, how about trying to refute any points I made in my film? I assume you watched it all, but I suppose you might have just skipped it and went right to the end. Until you try some rational refutation instead of pointless insults, you don't have a leg to stand on.
unclesam:
if it had a point, I would refute it.
what it seems to be saying is that maybe some of the FDNY firefighters might have possibly been duped by a hypothetical person who was, in fact, "in on it."
it is a lame attempt at explaining away dozens of quotes of firemen who were not surprised that 7 collapsed.
most of those quotes also nuke truther claims that 7 wasnt badly damaged or that there werent huge fires in 7. how to explain away those?
"how about trying to refute any points I made in my film"
I would, but consider this...
"Based largely on the research and information from David Ray Griffins..."
...what's the point? this fraud has been exposed so many times in so many ways as a clown and a fool, only someone who really, really, really wants 9/11 to be an inside job would take him seriously.
imagine, a theology professor trying to keep up with an army of world-class engineers from places like MIT.
what a complete JOKE!
Citizen:
Again, if you want to avoid a rational debate because you have no answer for any one of my points, that's fine. But stop posting these disgusting insults on my videos. I'm quite sick of you implying that I want to be right, because I don't. I don't think anyone in the movement wants to be right. And anyone who does, I believe, should be kicked out of the movement. If you continue with the insults and avoid rational debate, I will block you.
unclesam:
you have no points and DO want to be right.
if you think that is an insult, what can I tell you?
david ray griffin STILL talks about living hijackers. ridiculous. 8+ years, zero photos or video, no interviews, and not one journalist on earth who wants to be the most famous journalist ever. could it be more ridiculous?
why would a theologian have more science and engineering clout than MIT? explain that.
rational debate:
do you believe the fires were small and the damage to WTC7 was minor? most truthers do.
if so, the paper bending over backwards to explain away the dozens of firemen on record as being concerend about 7 collapsing hours in advance doesn't address that.
many of the collapse quotes also include mentions of the heavy damage and huge fires.
were firemen "led to believe" this and just repeated it? or are these 2 points you concede to the debunkers? which is it?
____________________________________________________
From there we started sending full messages:
Citizen:
First of all, thank you for trying to be more civil (even though you're still saying I want to be right).
Now, I would like to start off by saying that just because David Griffin wrote the book does not mean it's all his research. He wrote about the research done by other very experienced scientists and engineers. Yes, some of his views I addmittedly don't agree with, but he's not the only guy on the team. You don't have to limit yourself to just David Ray Griffin. As for your quote about MIT engineers having more experience, I know an MIT engineer who questions the official story.
To address your WTC 7 claims, let me first say that instead of going to the fire fighters for quotes about how big the fires were, why not address what NIST actually says about the fires. After all, that is the official report. If you think NIST downplayed the intensity of the fires, you'd better write them a letter asking for correction. I am not saying the fires weren't big, I'm just saying they were not big enough to cause the building to collapse. And it's important to note that many fire fighters on the scene did not think the fires were that intense and were surprised they were not fighting them. For example, Cheif Daniel Nigro is often mentioned saying that he felt the building was in danger of collapsing. But what isn't mentioned is that there were two other fire cheifs there as well who were not concerned about the building collapsing. So it seems that it was by no means a unanimous opinion that the building had huge fires and would collapse. As for the structural damage, regardless of how much damage there was, it doesn't matter at this point because NIST concluded that the damage played no role in the collapse. They said the building fell from fires alone and that it still would have collapsed if there had been no damage at all. These are all points I addressed in my film. This claim about the damage is a claim that debunkers keep making even though the report has been out for well over a year. So you and every other debunker needs to stop making that claim, unless you think NIST is wrong. I do not think the fire fighters are lying, but I do think that seeing two giant skyscapers collapsing may have led them to believe a third one could come down.
By the way, speaking of the damage, care to explain this damage to building 7? I've asked other debunkers and not one has answered me.
unclesam:
the final NIST repot came out less than 6 months ago. the video you linked is at least 2 years ago (when it was posted...when he gave the speech, I do not know).
has he updated his position? has the NIST report satisfied him?
I havent looked at it yet, but that date stood out so I am wondering if it is even relevant anymore. do you know if he has responded to the NIST report?
"To address your WTC 7 claims, let me first say that instead of going to the fire fighters for quotes about how big the fires were, why not address what NIST actually says about the fires"
why not do both? I realize truthers dont want to come out and say firefighters are liars or in on it (even jerkoff bermas retracted his utterly despicable comment that "the firemen were paid off"), but there was foreknowledge by the FDNY and the collapse wasn't the completely unexpected, smoking gun event most truthers say it is.
that's one reason out of many why what the firemen said is important.
but what's most surprising about the firemen quotes is how many truthers are completely unaware of them. same thing with the east penthouse. these are two very basic facts of the day. anyone who claims to have researched enough to say inside job and doesn't even know these two things is the very definition of Full of Sh*t.
and that's what I focus on. I dont set out to defend the govt and the official explanation any more than you are trying to defend jihadists. I call out the lies and bullshit of truther claims. I dont have a problem with people questioning and researching on their own, I have a problem with people reading truther sites, not bothering to find out what they read is a lie/bullshit or irrelevant, enjoying that warm fuzzy feeling inside (for whatever reason), and then accepting and repeating said bullshit as fact.
I also have a problem with people who simply cannot let go of dogma and accept perfectly reasonable answers to their questions. tell me why, to this day, truthers STILL say "fire cant melt steel" when talking about the collapse. why? it is jaw-dropping that this persists. no official anything EVER said melted steel caused the collapse, but truthers chant this line like zombies nearly a decade later. another example is asking why the 9/11 Comm. Report doesn't mention WTC7. the answer was probably issued 30 minutes after it was first asked. the report it is NOT an engineering document. it is NOT intended to explain building collapse. FEMA and NIST were handling that. this makes perfect sense, and is completely reasonable. yet, still, truthers will ask this question.
those are just two of the reasons the TM is so wrong. I could go on and on about cherry-picking (talking about fire alone, as if the airplane strikes and explosions dont factor in), other straw man arguments (not just "fire cant melt steel"), taking things out of context (mike walters quote in LC), and the rest of the logical fallacies.
what do you make of a movement that does this and calls itself "truth"? it is ridiculous and there is no doubt in my mind there needs to be a desire to believe this to continue adhering to it.
which is why I laugh at how 90% of the truthers I do discuss this with all want to give me a f-ing history lesson about abuse of power and/or they just come out and tell me that I MUST love bush, the patriot act, love the fed govt. as if it is one of the other.
it all adds up to a desire to be in on something against the The Man.
ok, got a little sidetracked there. back to the firemen quotes. another reason they matter is that many talk about large raging fires, which flies in the face of another common truther talking point, 7 suffered little damage and the fires were small.
"I am not saying the fires weren't big, I'm just saying they were not big enough to cause the building to collapse"
well, congrats on the first point. you dont even know how few of the 80-100 truthers I've discussed this with cannot bring themselves to admit this.
who are the other fire chiefs and what did they say? before I accept that, I'd like to be sure what your presenting isn't read thru the truther filter (i.e., "I heard explosions" = "there were bombs!"). if these fire chiefs and their words are in the video, which part is it?
"it doesn't matter at this point because NIST concluded that the damage played no role in the collapse"
I dont see how that is a reason to counter the common truther lie that the fires were small.
and "no role" is an exaggeration. how did the fires start? was it from....damage caused by falling debris? yes, that is what NIST says. which is why their own news release says "The fall of the 47-story World Trade Center building 7 (WTC 7) in New York City late in the afternoon of Sept. 11, 2001, was PRIMARILY due to fires, the Commerce Departments National Institute of Standards..." (emphasis mine, note the conditional word)
it also says this...
"Finally, the report notes that while debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting structural damage had LITTLE effect in causing the collapse of WTC 7." (emphasis mine, note the conditional word)
sorry if it seems like I am nitpicking, but I think it is worthwhile to be precise when faced with an erroneous absolute.
"They said the building fell from fires alone and that it still would have collapsed if there had been no damage at all."
except that without the falling debris and the damage it caused, there wouldn't have been a fire. this is like talking about the fires in the towers and leaving out the airplane impact and explosion.
"This claim about the damage is a claim that debunkers keep making even though the report has been out for well over a year. So you and every other debunker needs to stop making that claim, unless you think NIST is wrong."
you're putting words in my mouth, "...that claim...". what claim?
what I say is the truther claim that there was little or minor damage is bullshit. period. how does that contradict NIST? what claim am I making?
"By the way, speaking of the damage, care to explain this damage to building 7?"
you want me to describe what I see in pictures they dont show on truther websites (unless, of course, they are making baseless accusations of photoshop)? looks like an approx. 12-15 story gouge out of a corner. lots of facade damage, apparently not much structural damage. enough to spark a fire whether from a severed gas line or something else. I'm not really sure about much more and I have no problem admitting that.
which brings up another truther trait that points to following something other than the facts to get to their conclusion: certainty about so many things that no one can possibly be certain of, regardless of what they believe. it is rampant among the many truthers I have come across. but it eventually gets a little more complicated as they try to avoid my own questions. it often ends up like this...
1. I'm absolutely sure
2. we'll never know everything
3. no one can ever convince me it wasn't an inside job
4. I dont want to talk about it any more
unbelievable.
Citizen:
The final NIST report on WTC 7 came out in late 2008, just so you know. I want to make clear that I don't know who these truthers are that are making these claims about steel melting in the Towers and other things, but that's not me. I do believe there was molten metal in the debris of the WTC weeks after the attacks (most likely molten steel or molten iron) but I do not think steel was melted by the fires in the Towers. I would apperciate it if you would only address points that I have made. I am a truther, but I am my own person and have independent thought. If I mention points others have brought up, of course you can address them. But ultimately, just address what I'm saying here and now.
Yes, the fires were not small for fires, but they were small compared to larger, longer lasting fires in other skyscrapers.
I would be happy to give you the fire cheifs. They are in this video at about minute 2:14
I even have links provided for their quotes.
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. It's just that I have debunkers constantly telling me about the damage to building 7 and I have to keep reminding them what NIST actually says. NIST made two computer models of building 7, one where there was fire and damage, and one with only fire. Both models collapsed (even though niether one looks like the actual collapse).
The reason why I brought up the video of the gash in building 7's side is because it is strong evidence of something other than damage from debris. I think that we can agree that no amount of random pieces of flung debris could cause that damage to WTC 7. Incindentally, that video was first found on a debunker website. NIST doesn't mention this gash in their report. I have addressed this issue in my film and have a plausible scenario described in it.
I would love to hear your take on it. I hope to hear back from you.
unclesam:
my bad on the date. not sure what I was thinking.
anyway, do you know if that guy revised his position since it came out?
"...but I do not think steel was melted by the fires in the Towers. I would apperciate it if you would only address points that I have made."
seriously? you have a problem with me asking you why you think the popular truther non-point "fire cant melt steel" continues to persist? or what that does to your movement's credibility? you won't answer those?
"Yes, the fires were not small for fires, but they were small compared to larger, longer lasting fires in other skyscrapers."
could you possibly be more vague? and point does this....can this....possibly make? it wasn't the biggest fire ever? is that the point you are making? did anyone say it was? or did anyone say it was as big as other larger, longer lasting fires in other skyscrapers? what are you getting at?
"I would be happy to give you the fire cheifs"
world-class quote-mining, taking literal what suits and not what doesn't, assuming what the "meant" and using it as a position of reference falsely. what a load of shit. to come out and make the statement, based on the fireman saying he saw fire on three levels and drawing conclusions from that pretending you know what he meant, that he didn't expect collapse, is laughable.
like I was saying, there is a reason your movement's credibility is at toilet level.
"I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. It's just that..."
...you did exactly what you were so indignant about with me? something about responding to only what you say.
"The reason why I brought up the video of the gash in building 7's side is because it is strong evidence of something other than damage from debris. I think that we can agree that no amount of random pieces of flung debris could cause that damage to WTC 7."
you think wrong. the randomness of what happened is impossible to quantify completely. this is another common truther stumbling point: the expectation that every last detail can be 100% explained to their already-impossible and hopelessly biased standard.
"I would love to hear your take on it."
the one person being interviewed saying 9:30 instead of 10:30...again, I love how truthers can divine the true thoughts of people. as if you know if he was right, wrong, mistaken, misspoke, or whatever. it's a joke and it is one of the foundations of the entire movement. one assumption after another that all have to be right and an army of world-class scientists and engineers all have to be wrong (or in on it). how can you possibly take this shit seriously?
Citizen:
"anyway, do you know if that guy revised his position since it came out?"
I'm sorry, which person are you talking about?
"seriously? you have a problem with me asking you why you think the popular truther non-point "fire cant melt steel" continues to persist?"
I have a problem with you addressing claims that I myself am not personally making. Again, if I bring up a topic, address it. But if it's a claim I'm not making, don't bother.
"could you possibly be more vague? and point does this....can this....possibly make? it wasn't the biggest fire ever? is that the point you are making? did anyone say it was? or did anyone say it was as big as other larger, longer lasting fires in other skyscrapers? what are you getting at?"
Fine. If you think I'm being vague, then I will fix that:
"you did exactly what you were so indignant about with me? something about responding to only what you say."
I brought it up because you did address the issue, remember?
Your quote: "most of those quotes also nuke truther claims that 7 wasnt badly damaged"
"world-class quote-mining,"
Yes, it's only quote mining when truthers investigate, right?
"you think wrong. the randomness of what happened is impossible to quantify completely. this is another common truther stumbling point: the expectation that every last detail can be 100% explained to their already-impossible and hopelessly biased standard."
I made a video on this. Perhaps you should take a look.
unclesam:
I meant jeff king of MIT.
so you won't comment on your movement's continued use of thoroughly debunked claims. I can't say I blame you, but the credibility stays at ant ass level as long as that continues. people in the movement like you who are brave enough to admit that many of the tired old talking points are bullshit aren't helping things by pretend they dont exist.
you believe you are adding more specificity by showing me that lame video of other buildings burning? how?
you said me "and every other debunker need to stop making that claim" and I accused you of putting words in my mouth since I didnt make that claim. so I am not sure what..
"I brought it up because you did address the issue, remember? Your quote: "most of those quotes also nuke truther claims that 7 wasnt badly damaged " "
....means.
my point is that truthers are wrong when they talk about minor damage. dozens of firefighters say otherwise. why do you believe someone other than firefighters who were there and observed the damage? please explain that.
"it's only quote mining when truthers investigate, right?"
to quote you: "if it's a claim I'm not making, don't bother."
I didnt say that. but in your case, it is obviously quote-mining and the reason you are so defensive about that charge is because truthers are accused of it all the time. the reason for that is because truthers are guilty of it all the time.
"I made a video on this. Perhaps you should take a look."
can you be more specific? what did you address and what is the link?
can you admit that the firefighters quotes about the severity of damage to 7 proves the truther talking point that the damage was minor is false?
and what is it about the gash that you think is so obviously NOT caused by falling debris from the tower collapse?
Citizen:
"I meant jeff king of MIT."
As far as I know he hasn't changed his position.If he has, I would love to know.
"so you won't comment on your movement's continued use of thoroughly debunked claims."
I just don't comment on things I don't believe. I know that there are many disagreements in the movement about what to believe and what not to believe, and I wish that didn't have to happen. It would be great if we could all agree on the same things, but I know that's tough to accomplish. I do occasionally try to get other truthers to drop some of their beliefs. For instance, I thoroughly DO NOT believe in the whole "no plane hit the Pentagon" theory, but I know other truthers do and I wish they would rethink their views. In many ways I'm trying to correct debunkers and truthers whose views I feel are incorrect.
"you believe you are adding more specificity by showing me that lame video of other buildings burning? how?"
I don't know how I could have been more specific. When skyscrapers have burned for 17,
18, and even 24 hours without collapsing, I obviously am going to have a problem with a building collapsing from fire in 7 hours.
"my point is that truthers are wrong when they talk about minor damage. dozens of firefighters say otherwise. why do you believe someone other than firefighters who were there and observed the damage? please explain that."
Again, I don't disagree with the firefighters about what they saw. It's just that the official investigators say the structural damage had nothing to do with the collapse, so it seems a little insignifigant to discuss. What's more is that I'm having trouble understanding what caused the damage to the building. There's that famous shot from popular mechanics that shows the bottom southwest corner "scooped out" as they say. Now popular mechanics has actually said that they have pictures showing the full damage to building 7, but they won't release them. Why? That certainly doesn't seem fair. The problem I have is that I've seen other pictures of that section of the building, and it shows the building wasn't scooped out!
http://www.calgary911truth.org/photos/uncategorized/2007/05/17/combosmall_2.jpg
http://loveforlife.com.au/files/911%205.jpg
You have to admit that is very strange.
"I didnt say that."
Um... I'm sorry, but yes you did. In your last message: -"world-class quote-mining, taking literal what suits and not what doesn't, assuming what the "meant" and using it as a position of reference falsely."
"and what is it about the gash that you think is so obviously NOT caused by falling debris from the tower collapse?"
The problem is that it doesn't look like any other kind of damage to the other buildings. All you have to do is look at the pictures of the other damaged buildings and you can see what I'm talking about. The gash in the building was perfectly straight, vertically going down the building, and was very neat. It wasn't jagged or destructive looking. It literally looks like something just perfectly took out that section. Basicaly, it looked man-made. I have two videos addressing this point (one of which I have already sent you).
This video shows the full length of the damage and how debris could not have caused it.
And this video gives a plausible narrative for what actually did cause it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByHxFOdBsJw
This second video ties in with a report given on the morning of 9/11 that another building of 50 storeys also collapsed at about 10:45, 15 minutes after the North Tower fell.
I hope this answers some of your questions.
___________________________________________________________
Hopefully unclesam will rethink his position on the issues and try to be a little bit more civilized in the future. I know that's just wishful thinking, but a guy can dream. :)
___________________________________________________________
John-Michael P. Talboo comment...
Just thought I'd pop into your blog to do some mining, add some related info and links, and say welcome to Debunking the Debunkers!
Fire Captain Ray Goldbach says, “[W]e made a decision to take all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center because there was a potential for collapse.” [City of New York, 10/24/2001] However, some firefighters seem surprised at this decision. When Fire Commissioner Thomas Von Essen is making his way through hundreds of firefighters who are being held away from the WTC site, he hears complaints like, “It could take days for that building to come down,” and, “Why don’t they let us in there?” [Essen, 2002, pp. 45] When Deputy Fire Chief Nick Visconti is instructing firefighters to evacuate the area, one comment he receives is, “[O]h, that building is never coming down, that didn’t get hit by a plane, why isn’t somebody in there putting the fire out?” [Firehouse Magazine, 8/2002]
Heated Controversy: Do firefighters believe 9/11 conspiracy theories?
"It is important to stress that everywhere we turn there are statements from firemen, NYPD officials, EMT's and others who were involved in the rescue efforts attesting to the fact that Building 7 was brought down deliberately and that bombs were heard in all three buildings. During the five year anniversary protests at ground zero, a plethora of firemen and police echoed similar sentiments but few are prepared to go on the record. However, the fact that they and many of their friends are now dying in large numbers as a result of government deception is encouraging more to come forward." - SOURCE: NYPD Officer Heard Building 7 Bombs
Jason Bermas interviews FDNY Firefighter who questions WTC7's Collapse
From the list of 81 Confirmed firefighter signatories at FireFightersFor911Truth.org...
Anton Vodvarka New York City Fire Dept. (Retired) 15+ Years
Jim Lundberg, "I saw the dust and smelled the sulfur. There is no way that was a natural collapse."
John Keenan FDNY retired
xxxxxxxx FDNY ret. Lt. 15+ Years
I too have been accused of being an "FDNY hating scumbag" for posting this blog, scroll down and take a look at the update.
Debunking AlienEntity1
No comments:
Post a Comment