9/11 FDNY involvement

[gtc]

Thread topic should be 9/11 FDNY involvement. I will ask the mods to fix it.

Where did you get the crazy idea that if you believe that 9/11 was an inside job, then by definition the firefighters were in on it?

OK. You have made a claim that it is a crazy idea to suggest that an inside job required the knowledge or complicity of firefighters. Can you back that claim up?

Can you suggest a plausible scenario for an inside job that does not involve the complicity of the firefighters.

I can't think of one, particularly if WTC7 was a controlled demolotion on the orders of Larry Silverstein.

 

[johnny karate]

I predict this thread will yield zero responses from CTers. (And if any do respond, it will be to make some vague claim about firefighters afraid of losing their jobs.)

Why?

Because this issue is one of their major Achilles' heels and they know it.

The FDNY does not side with their version of events and they know it.

The only tricky part here for them is that they can't paint the FDNY with that same broad brush of accusation they so liberally apply to everyone else even tangentially associated with 9/11. To do so would be political suicide and what little traction their movement may have gained would be utterly destroyed and they would be vilified in the public eye.

However, there is no plausible scenario for an inside job that doesn't include complicity on the part of the FDNY, either before or after the fact. I defy any CTer to present one.

Take WTC7, for example. The so-called "smoking gun". CTers will tell you that the debris damage and fires were not severe enough to cause the collapse. And yet every single firefighter that was on the scene that day believes just the opposite.

How do I know this?

Because not a single one of them has come forward to dispute the official version of events. And if any firefighter had reason to believe anything other than what the official version states, like for instance that the WTC7 collapse was due to a controlled demolition, and they didn't come forward with this information, they would be complicit after the fact.

And we wouldn't want to accuse them of that, would we CTers?

No, this thread will most likely slip of the first page and into obscurity with little or no response from the CTers. Because, like all glaring flaws in their belief system, they will choose to ignore it.

 

[gtc]

Thanks for your response, you have provided a really good summary.

The other issue with WTC7 is that Silverstein made his comment about pulling the building to the FDNY. If that quote is evidence of a CD, then the FDNY was involved prior to the building's collapse.

 

[pomeroo]

Thanks for your response, you have provided a really good summary.

The other issue with WTC7 is that Silverstein made his comment about pulling the building to the FDNY. If that quote is evidence of a CD, then the FDNY was involved prior to the building's collapse.

The very last thing we need is another WTC 7 thread. The rationalists have won a crushing victory on this topic. We have established that no fantasist is capable of connecting these three concepts: Larry Silverstein, the FDNY, and controlled demolition. Silverstein's notorious exchange shows nothing more than his agreement with the fire department's assessment of the situation. If it has a more sinister meaning, the liars are conspicuously incapable of telling us what it might be.

 

[Sizzler]

Thread topic should be 9/11 FDNY involvement. I will ask the mods to fix it.



OK. You have made a claim that it is a crazy idea to suggest that an inside job required the knowledge or complicity of firefighters. Can you back that claim up?

Can you suggest a plausible scenario for an inside job that does not involve the complicity of the firefighters.

I can't think of one, particularly if WTC7 was a controlled demolotion on the orders of Larry Silverstein.

I find it hard to prove a negative.

I'll play if you tell me why the fire department had to know. We'll go from there.

The comment about Larry is a good example to start with. No one has been able to support, beyond Larry's words, if he actually had a conversation with a fire commandor. I think it is obvious that he did not tell any firefighters to CD the building. His quote has been taken out of context, obviously. Therefore the Larry S. quote doesn't mean anything and the firefighters didn't have to know it was rigged for CD.

next?

 

[TheRedWorm]

That works for pre-collapse, but what about post-collapse? You still have to explain why not one FF has come forward as someone who didn't believe the building fell due to damage + fire.

 

[Sizzler]

That works for pre-collapse, but what about post-collapse? You still have to explain why not one FF has come forward as someone who didn't believe the building fell due to damage + fire.

But again I'm asked to support a negative.

 

[TheRedWorm]

Not really. If you turn the question around, it reads as: Are there any FFs that think that the building was brought down from something other than fire + damage? If yes, that could be supplied. Where the difficulty comes in is in interpretation. There are no FFs (at least that I am aware of) that publicly state that WTC 1, 2 or 7 were brought down by anything other than damage + fire. This leads me to interpret that piece of info as no FF believes that the collapse was caused by anything else. If you have a different interpretation of the same piece of evidence, be my guest...

 

[Sizzler]

Not really. If you turn the question around, it reads as: Are there any FFs that think that the building was brought down from something other than fire + damage? If yes, that could be supplied. Where the difficulty comes in is in interpretation. There are no FFs (at least that I am aware of) that publicly state that WTC 1, 2 or 7 were brought down by anything other than damage + fire. This leads me to interpret that piece of info as no FF believes that the collapse was caused by anything else. If you have a different interpretation of the same piece of evidence, be my guest...

Well if I could demonstrate that at least one firefighter has stated that he thinks (present tense) bombs were used then that would be enough.

But, this entire issue rests on the assumption that firefighters would have known beyong a reasonable doubt that bombs were in the building. And then it also rests on the assumption that said firefighters would make public statements about such information.

Now, these might be reasonable assumptions but they nonetheless need to be supported for your arguement to hold ground.

I can simply say that none of the firefighters know beyond reasonable doubt that bombs were in the building. Firefighters explain "explosions" but of course that is up for interpretation.

So you see it is kinda complicated here and hence the difficulty in proving a negative.

I'll try to find at least one firefighter that claims bombs were in the building. I think I can do it (and I'm sure he has already been ripped apart by debunkers).

 

[gtc]

Sizzler,

Thanks for responding. I appreciate it and I think we are already getting somewhere.

What I am hoping will happen with this thread is that truthers will present their ideas about how an inside job could have occurred without FDNY involvement.

Obviously the theories presented should have some plausibility but the particular evidence for or against the theories is not relevant to this thread (plenty of other threads to discuss that).

When a theory is presented it will be up to us debunkers to show that the scenario is impossible without the knowledge or involvement of the FDNY.

A good example is the theory that has already been discussed about Silverstein and the WTC7. Clearly, we both agree that if that conversation really occurred and was really an order to demolish the building then the FDNY had to have been involved.

Do you have any theories of your own that you want to share? It doesn't matter if you can't prove that your theory is correct; speculation is fine for this thread.

I think this should address Pomeroo's points as well.

Edited to add, speculation about whether fire fighters would have twigged to a CD before or after is another good example of what I am hoping to discuss.

 

[aggle-rithm]

But, this entire issue rests on the assumption that firefighters would have known beyong a reasonable doubt that bombs were in the building.

????

If THEY didn't know, then how do YOU know?

 

[TheRedWorm]

I know it is complicated, that is probably why you haven't posted your unified theory as of yet.

But do try and find a FF that thinks (current tense) that bombs brought down WTC 1, 2 or 7. As long as the path to knowledge is an honest one.

 

[CurtC]

But again I'm asked to support a negative.

We can't think of any plausible inside job scenarios which could happen without the knowledge by the FDNY. Maybe not foreknowledge, but at least knowledge after the fact and complicity in the cover-up.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

any evidence of demolition would have bene present in the debris pile, in form of unexploded charges, blasting caps, detcord, etc etc

also remember fire fighters were digging through the pile for weeks before the debris was shipped off to "china" (AKA staten island)

fire fighters would have noticed anything unusual about the fires themselves and the aftermath


so ultimately if there was anything as obviously unusual about the fires and the collapses, as the truthers would have us believe, the fire fighters would have been the first to know, and yet they arent demanding a new investigation in any great numbers

 

[sts60]

I predict this thread will yield zero responses from CTers. (And if any do respond, it will be to make some vague claim about firefighters afraid of losing their jobs.)

Why?

Because this issue is one of their major Achilles' heels and they know it.

The FDNY does not side with their version of events and they know it.

The only tricky part here for them is that they can't paint the FDNY with that same broad brush of accusation they so liberally apply to everyone else even tangentially associated with 9/11. To do so would be political suicide and what little traction their movement may have gained would be utterly destroyed and they would be vilified in the public eye.

Which is why some posters here have flogged the meme that goes something like "but how many rank and file firefighters personally believed WTC 7 was going to come down"? They want to cast FUD about the unambiguous collapse indicators observed by FDNY that day. They want to push the idea that the rank and file FFs were only repeating what had been told to them by authority - which, as some have observed, fits neatly into the "master/slave" conspiracist view of how things work. They want people to believe that "real" firefighters didn't actually know the building was in imminent collapse danger; that they only knew what they were told by higher-ups, and that the higher-ups were covering up the real CD-caused collapse with a story about "natural" collapse. (I see this same thing a lot with "but the Apollo engineers only knew what they were told by the top guys at NASA".)

In short, they are accusing FDNY of being in on it, but without coming right out and saying it. They also think that they can restrict it to senior "management", isolating them from the rest of FDNY and thus avoid triggering outrage against the accusation of FDNY complicity. Unfortunately, this doesn't work for several reasons:

1. Their claims don't have any evidence for them, and don't make any sense in terms of motive, relevance to the greater scheme, or the alleged execution of the WTC 7 demolition itself. Of course, this is true of pretty much all the conspiracist claims.

2. The disingenuous way the WTC 7 scheme is "advanced" is pretty transparent. It may work with those not familiar with the conspiracist playbook, but not with the regulars here, who have seen the earnest, oh-so-innocent "Just Asking Questions" approach before.

3. The testimony of those personally witnessing WTC 7 collapse indicators goes right down the pay scale from assistant chiefs to captains and lieutenants - unit officers right there on the front lines - and down to, yes, the rank-and-file. (At this point, we hear the familiar rumble of the goalposts being moved - "what, there are only ___ regular firefighters on the list?")

It's a sneaky and underhanded approach to accusing FDNY of being in on it, without having the gumption to come out and actually say it. Pathetic.

 

[nicepants]

I find it hard to prove a negative.

I'll play if you tell me why the fire department had to know. We'll go from there.

The comment about Larry is a good example to start with. No one has been able to support, beyond Larry's words, if he actually had a conversation with a fire commandor. I think it is obvious that he did not tell any firefighters to CD the building. His quote has been taken out of context, obviously. Therefore the Larry S. quote doesn't mean anything and the firefighters didn't have to know it was rigged for CD.

next?

That would then destroy any CD relying on the "pull it" quote, since the assumption is that the conversation mentioning that phrase never took place.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Well if I could demonstrate that at least one firefighter has stated that he thinks (present tense) bombs were used then that would be enough.

OK...the challenge was:

Can you suggest a plausible scenario for an inside job that does not involve the complicity of the firefighters.

Can you explain how ONE firefighter hearing bombs makes it plausible that an inside job could be carried out without a significant number of firefighters noticing?

If your argument is that the challenge only requires a single exception to falsify "no complicity", then you are arguing semantics. Remember what the point of the thread is.

 

[gtc]

On reflection, I can think of two scenarios for an inside job without FDNY knowledge.

The first is the LIHOP scenario and the second is any MIHOP scenario which involves no obvious tampering with the buildings prior to or after the plane crashes and no obvious tampering with the planes.

It seems to me that other theories imply FDNY involvment but I am willing to be corrected.

 

[CurtC]

...and the second is any MIHOP scenario which involves no obvious tampering with the buildings prior to or after the plane crashes and no obvious tampering with the planes.

That's true, but I was assuming we were talking about the flavors of conspiracy theories that involve bringing down the three buildings with explosives or thermite, space beams, or anything else that wasn't the "official story."

 

[Alt+F4]

any evidence of demolition would have bene present in the debris pile, in form of unexploded charges, blasting caps, detcord, etc etc

also remember fire fighters were digging through the pile for weeks before the debris was shipped off to "china" (AKA staten island)

fire fighters would have noticed anything unusual about the fires themselves and the aftermath

so ultimately if there was anything as obviously unusual about the fires and the collapses, as the truthers would have us believe, the fire fighters would have been the first to know, and yet they arent demanding a new investigation in any great numbers

Exactly. Keep in mind that many of the FDNY members who worked on the pile and at Fresh Kills were not just firefighters but also professional arson investigators (called Fire Marshals in the FDNY). If they saw anything indicating a CD they would have been the first to speak out.

Why do the conspiracy liars think any of these men and women would cover up the murder of 347 members of their own department?

I've yet to meet an FDNY member that could shut his or her mouth up about something regading the safety of FDNY members or the public. Do you know how much flack the FDNY has given Rudy Giuliani everyday since 9/11? "America's Mayor"? Ask an FDNY member about that.