"REAL" Fire Fighter, Erik Lawyer Slams NIST And The 9/11 "Investigation"

bill smith is an idiot. that's why he was laughed off the forum at JREF.

 

The first impact of Flight 11 was witnessed by fireman and filmed by the Naudet Brothers in their documentary. The cause of the fires was known, and it had nothing to do with planted bombs or therm*te of any form. The ensuing clean up confirmed just that as no detination cord was found, no blasting caps, no evidence of controlled demolition in any form was found, period. So a Seattle fireman, who wasn't there, can be as pissed off as he wants to be. He had his ass handed to him at JREF.

 

So far I have found troughers to be well ....psychopathic lunatics.

I have never seen so much backward fiizzyaches in my life.

 

thats your opinion, bull (*)(*)(*)(*) ad hominem attacks only made them look about as dumb assed prejudiced as they are. Which is good because it shows the arrogance we have as public trustees.

Oh and you do not need any of that (*)(*)(*)(*) hardware now days. you people are living in the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing stone age.

 

Nowadays? it was 12 years ago. My opinion? Its a fact the first impact of flight 11 was captured on video by the Naudet brothers, and witnessed by firemen, live. The source of what caused the fires, was known instantly.

http://www.jod911.com/WTC COLLAPSE STUDY BBlanchard 8-8-06.pdf

Playtime is over, time to come in and do some homework junior.

 

that fuzzy pixelated blob of (*)(*)(*)(*) dont prove nuthing!

The only identifiable thing I seen was an explosion.

does not change the fact that Lawyer was reading from the procedures handbook and the forum experts called bull(*)(*)(*)(*) on the official procedures handbook.

How (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up is that!

 

Yep you are a liar then. If you watched the real video it had undeniable sound of a plane and an object easily identifiable as one as well. Are you and 7forever related?

Guess you didn't bother to look at the article I posted, if you did you wouldn't be spouting off so much cow dung and polluting the internet. Read it before responding. Its written by one of the worlds foremost experts on controlled demolition. He was there, assisting in the clean up, not 3000 miles away waiving a handbook.

 

We knew that.

 

ah huh,

and troughers arent brite enough to realize it doesnt apply

LMAO

 

What is utterly cocked-up is the brain-dead assumption that there was any requirement to conduct the investigation in accordance with the manual.Pull your head out of your butt and provide evidence that it is mandatory even to apply the manual.

 

You saw a deflagration of a hydrocarbon aerosol. You did not see an explosion of RDX, TNT or any known high explosive useful for the purpose of building demolition. There is only one way that that much hydrocarbon fuel could have been placed there, and that is aboard an airliner.

 

Time to write our legislators huh? Seems you kids are (*)(*)(*)(*)ing the public over and need a few more laws laid down.

 

No I saw high explosives, and I would have to be on some seriously good drugs to say something as foolish as: There is only one way that that much hydrocarbon fuel could have been placed there, and that is aboard an airliner.

omfg, there are no depths to trougher madness.

 

get a clue, anyone, (well apparently except you) can dub in hank williams then you can say the plane sounded like hold hank!

I post the first videos of the ALLEGED plane that were aired the first couple days before they started "improving" on them. LOL

 

So here are some questions.

1. If explosives were used to bring down the towers, why can't the explosions be seen/heard in the massive videos of the collapses? Are truthers suggesting they were edited out? I have been near an implosion. The noise is very clear.

2. There is a lot of talk in truther land about molten metal in the pile? The fires burned hot enough to melt many of the metals in the buildings. One fire fighter calls it steel but you can't really tell the difference between steel and other metals of similar colour by looking at it. Since the heat of the pile could easily have kept some metals melted because of the fires is this a case of mistaken identity?

3. The use of thermite would not have created the molten metal that is noted. In fact thermite could not have been steathly used it is pretty dramatic looking stuff when it burns. (think sparklers on the 4th).

4. We have recorded phone calls during the actual collapse with no explosions heard coming from the towers. They are hard to listen to but exist. How is that explained?

5. Why do the truthers feel the need to use deception when talking about 9-11. Building 7 is a great example. A building fell on it but what you hear is that a plane didn't hit it. You are right, structural damage and fire brought it down. That is clear from all the details.

6. Truthers like birthers reject all real evidence. They are like creationists who say if science contradicts the Bible, the science is wrong. For truthers, if science contradicts their fantasy, science is wrong.


Truther support has plummeted because facts will almost always win the day. Except for a few zealots who want to be angry.

 

Now that is hilarious!!!! You have posted squat, and displayed an astonishing lack of understanding of how the events of the day unfolded...we won't even get into your "logic" about controlled demolition.

 

And truthers are dumb enough to open their mouth.

 

Of course its hilarious. Why do you think I keep laughing my ass off at the silly (*)(*)(*)(*) you people put out here evidence. Its better than any comedy I can watch on tv man.

and you cant get into my logic about cd, you cant even see those buildings were blown, you would need about 100 years of skolin to get to my level.

 

So far, the best you have offered in this thread (although you have run away from that short round) is the word of a rookie whose more experienced colleagues think is two face cards short of a full house.

Try staying on topic, and, if the opening round goes off in your face, you might go on to another thread on a topic on which others here are not better-educated.

I can't imagine, however, what that might be.

 

he read from the SOP manual, THE FIREMANS BIBLE and you had to gall to run it down. Yeh someone is short of a full house and it aint the rookie!

 

Careful, koko is very "brite" and will dominate you in a battle of banality.

He's also got a law degree from the University of Turks and Caicos. Tread lightly.

 

"Ad hominen attacks is a particular narrative form of scapegoating that frames demonized enemies as part of a vast insidious plot against the common good, while it valorizes the scapegoater as a hero for sounding the alarm.

 

"I am patient with stupidity but not with those who are proud of it." Edith Sitwell

 

Stupidity is when you can't help it -ignorance is when you choose not to understand something.

Sarah McLachlan

 

truthers are a cut above the rest and as demonstrated beyond the call of duty, are patient with troughers despite we know their ignorance is willful.