Specific pieces of evidence showing 9/11 s an inside job

RWAF, why do you still run from this very (*)(*)(*)(*)ing evidence? I thought you claimed you look at all the evidence. Do you think I made up the survivors?

 

No...but they certainly inferred it IMO. Perhaps somebody else can watch the videos and comment? I don't think I'm that far off on my assessment of them.

 

I'm SPECIFICALLY talking about the firefighters in these videos and their words. I'll address posts responding to that SPECIFICALLY. Post another thread on the survivors if you like. I'm trying to stick to what these firefighters are saying and what it is they're trying to convey.

 

When you have to infer what you THINK they meant and they never bothered to clarify even when they had the chance and to NOT clarify lets the true culprits off scot free, well, then you just have to ask yourself whether your inferrence is full of (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

You asked for evidence directly disproving explosives being used. I've given you that evidence and here you are running from it. Why? I thought you look at all the evidence?

 

Stick to the points raised directly and I'll be happy to respond. If you want to raise another point, please do so elsewhere or AFTER the logical conclusion of this particular topic (which is about the firefighters in the videos and their words) has been reached (instead of "running" to another topic). Please and thank you.

 

I am SPECIFICALLY responding to this post and to this point. The FACT you have 13 survivors in the very place truthers claim the explosives would have been placed for a controlled demolition and yet they both survived the collapse and didn't hear explosions going off before and during the collapse proves that the explosions heard elsewhere were NOT explosives going off to create a controlled demolition of the towers. This is not from some report, but straight from the 13 survivors.

Now please address the direct response you asked for.

 

I asked for responses pertinent to what the firefighters had to say in the videos about bombs going off. They were talking about bombs. They clearly think there were bombs. They clearly think they heard bombs. I can hear bombs in the video. Bombs ARE the topic of the thread. Firefighters acknowledging bombs IS the topic. Them and their comments directly. That is what I am asking for.

 

And 13 survivors can refute what the firefighters think they heard. How is that not pertinent to the thread?

 

So now you speak for what all firefighters think? Wow! That is SOME EGO!!!! I was responding DIRECTLY to a question YOU ASKED in THIS THREAD. Why you continue to run from a response to a question YOU asked is beyond me.

BTW, what superpower do you have where you can differentiate explosions so perfectly? Are you so good that you can tell us the make and model of the bomb? What kind of explosive was used? I mean, you make the claim you know what made the sound, so clearly you have some kind of inside track. Or is this in line with how you just "know" what the firefighers are thinking despite the fact not one of them is backing up your claim?

 

SPECIFIC to the firefighters and their words. You guys can go anywhere you want, as you always do. I'm seeing the points raised to a conclusion, and a conclusion involving actual discussion SPECIFICALLY of what the firefighters think about bombs. Start another thread if you want to talk about survivors, instead of trying to derail this thread, which is discussing the firefighters videos, their words, and their observations SPECIFICALLY.

 

I'm commenting on, again, the firefighters in the videos, again, discussing bombs, and their opinions of what it was THEY experienced. I speak for ME, and what I think they are inferring, and invite others to offer their interpretations, and discuss them in a reasonable, respectful manner.

What do YOU think the firefighters are saying????

 

I see. So if you don't like the direction the conversation is going, ignore it, pretend that part isn't being discussed even though it is a DIRECT response to YOUR question in THIS thread, and try to pretend your thread is actually honest.

I think the fire fighters are saying they heard explosions. I don't need to put words in their mouths. I don't need to have a massive ego and pretend I know what they think. I listen to what they say. I read what they wrote after the fact. I look at what they have or have not said these last ten years.

ALL of this leads me to believe the firefighters heard explosions and none of them think the explosions were caused by explosives.

So far the only evidence to the contrary is what you "think" they "really" meant. Who are we to believe? You or them? You're both saying something different. I tend to believe them. They don't have a credibility problem.

 

Excellent! You consider them credible. Fantastic! I shall return.

 

From the OP's link:

I agree completely. Per the OP: there is no evidence of controlled demolition at the WTC.

 

Well, here is what one of them said, "I don't know what on earth caused that", yet you think you do know. LOL

 

It was probably just a transformer or something. No way it could have been a result of a controlled demolition. YOU know that though....right?

 

Could have been I suppose. Except for the fact that there is no evidence to back up that theory. Like the fact that in controlled demolitions, huge explosions are heard before the building starts collapsing.

I don't see where anyone heard that.

 

BOOM! Then an hour later the building collapses. Now that's control!

 

There were witnesses and reports of huge explosions prior to the buildings collapse. Would you read it and consider it if I posted it?

 

Why ask? Just post it and let it stand or fall on its own merits.

 

Well, sometimes the upcoming posts from "official" supporters are too predictable to stand. What can I say? It gets old. Sometimes I feel like "why bother"?

 

Ok, I guess you have abandoned your former stance on addressing the points.

 

Well, it's looking like I still get nothing much more than insults, dances and spinning. It's somewhat disheartening to present information and have everything you present ridiculed, spat upon, or whatever. I don't know what I was thinking when I thought that honest back and forth discussion could be achieved. Seems it cannot be. Oh well.

 

I haven't insulted, danced or spun. I asked specific questions and responded to specific questions.

Oh well.