Car Bomb at Pentagon on 9/11

Sixtus

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Even in your question dodging you are wrong.



That is an e-cigarette. By your logic this poor man's face is "engulfed in flames".

Thats highly specious reasoning.

It is possible to have smoke without fire. This is all besides the point though. The image you posted you claimed to be "engulfed in flames" was nothing of the sort.

It is, however the image combined with the quotes from fire fighters prove the building was fully engulfed.

This is not a "fact". It's impossible to tell if anything is happening "continuously" in a still image which captures a fraction of a second.

And I've now provided video.

Photographic evidence which proves a building is "engulfed in flames" is a photo which shows exactly that and this is something that you haven't provided.

I have. You're not satisfied by it, and then pointedly ignore the testimony of FDNY members.

This is like talking to the wall . I must've mentioned the Minetta report about 10 times at this stage. On what basis do you describe the police transmissions as "confused"?

Because there is no evidence of a bomb going off on King St.

And AGAIN what evidence would we be certain to find that is missing?

Please provide ANY evidence that a bomb exploded on King St on 9/11.

How do you know?
Have you seen the NYPD, ESU or Bomb Squad reports? Have you read any media investigation into this?

The Burden of proof is on the claimant. Please provide evidence the bomb squad were called to King St. It's your claim. You Prove it.

And AGAIN - do you know what a gag order is?

Please provide evidence a gag order is in place.

Ridiculous statement. Whatever else you might think I am clearly not lying about anything.

Well then you can either provide evidence a bomb went off on King St, provide evidence which disproves Firefighter testimony about the state of WTC7.

Otherwise I stand over my statement.

Brown Bomber

This is a building "e ngulfed in flames". Needless to say it looks nothing like your image which you falsely purported to be "engulfed in flames" the difference being with my image the actual visual presence of fire. I simply cannot believe I have been having this exact same conversation for a week now. This is the last comment on the matter.

As regards the possible 911 mural van I have almost as little motivation to continue the discussion. You seem intent on dodging questions and even more so to defend the official 911 Conspiracy Theory even if it means contradicting yourself and constantly moving the goalposts.

The fact is that neither of us know what happened. I make no pretense otherwise but you seem convinced of what happened despite it being very much unknown.

Given both the NYPD radio transmission i.e. the only sources of evidence available and the government official who corroborated it, on record, it is highly probable that there was an "incident" of some kind involving a van which contained a mural of a plane crashing into NY with two occupants who were stopped by the NYPD who called out the bomb squad to the scene.

Despite there being two sources that verify this and absolutely nothing to contradict this you have for some reason, which you refuse to divulge, have decided that you know better.

After that the facts get more murky but we can't even get that far to discuss this as you have rejected the whole incident from the outset despite the evidence being very much against you.

By all means believe whatever you wan't to believe but I am not interested at all in point scoring excercises and one-upmanship but in having discussions with people who are prepared to explore the evidence with an open mind and let the evidence guide them to conclusions. If that's not you then that's fine but please oblige me and don't respond to me anymore for both our sakes.

And should you have some hilarious put-down or hilarious quip save it for someone who cares. Cheers.

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Given both the NYPD radio transmission i.e. the only sources of evidence available and the government official who corroborated it, on record, it is highly probable that there was an "incident" of some kind involving a van which contained a mural of a plane crashing into NY with two occupants who were stopped by the NYPD who called out the bomb squad to the scene.

Despite there being two sources that verify this and absolutely nothing to contradict this you have for some reason, which you refuse to divulge, have decided that you know better.

But one of those sources contradicts the other.
One, you claim confirms there was an explosion. The other specifically says there was not.
To explain this in your preferred narrative you need to invent a massive conspiracy.
But the most and likely reasonable explanation all you need to presuppose is that 1) an officer or member of the public can misinterpret something innocuous as suspicious and 2) people can hear, give and repeat confused and/or erroneous information over the radio in times of stress and confusion, especially when that information is second or third hand.

Again, since you are so opposed to dodging questions, point out which of these things are impossible, unlikely or outlandish.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

But one of those sources contradicts the other..

Only partially.

Where the details do converge you still don't accept these details as probable despite absolutely nothing to contradict this and opt instead to substitute this with your own imagination. Which is primarily the reason why I've chosen to terminate my conversation with you on this matter having written it off as a lost cause.

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Only partially.

Yea, they only differ in niggling details like the van exploding.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Where the details do converge you still don't accept these details as probable despite absolutely nothing to contradict this and opt instead to substitute this with your own imagination.

Again, you must substitute in a vast conspiracy to make these to sources actually agree with each other.
What have you got to suggest that there is a cover up? What have you got to contradict the report?

If this is not the case, why does the report not say that the van exploded that say that no explosive were found?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Which is primarily the reason why I've chosen to terminate my conversation with you on this matter having written it off as a lost cause.

And I have repeatedly explained my position to you in many different ways,
You have been ignoring every single one of my points because you have no interest in considering a non-conspiracy explanation.
I have laid out both my position and asked you to detail exactly what you find impossible, and the myriad of issues with the conspiracy narrative.
Yet you continue to dodge simple questions while berating Sixtus for supposedly doing the same.

Again:
But the most and likely reasonable explanation all you need to presuppose is that 1) an officer or member of the public can misinterpret something innocuous as suspicious and 2) people can hear, give and repeat confused and/or erroneous information over the radio in times of stress and confusion, especially when that information is second or third hand.

Which of these are impossible, unlikely or outlandish?

Brown Bomber

Again you are completely ignoring that that there are specific details in the government report and the NYPD Officer's account and you still reject this. That is my point. I can't be arsed repeating myself again so im going to paste

Given both the NYPD radio transmission i.e. the only sources of evidence available and the government official who corroborated it, on record, it is highly probable that there was an "incident" of some kind involving a van which contained a mural of a plane crashing into NY with two occupants who were stopped by the NYPD who called out the bomb squad to the scene.

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Again you are completely ignoring that that there are specific details in the government report and the NYPD Officer's account and you still reject this. That is my point. I can't be arsed repeating myself again so im going to paste

No BB, I have been addressing that again and again and again. You've just been ignoring those points.

And again, one of those specific details is the van exploding. One source you think shows it did, the other specifically states that it did not.
You invent a massive conspiracy out of thin air to address the point.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Given both the NYPD radio transmission i.e. the only sources of evidence available and the government official who corroborated it, on record, it is highly probable that there was an "incident" of some kind involving a van which contained a mural of a plane crashing into NY with two occupants who were stopped by the NYPD who called out the bomb squad to the scene.

Where have I ever suggested there was not an incident?

Is it possible that the mural in question could have been an innocent advertisement or similar that people mistook for a mural depicting the attacks? Yes or no?

Sixtus

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This is a building "e ngulfed in flames". Needless to say it looks nothing like your image which you falsely purported to be "engulfed in flames" the difference being with my image the actual visual presence of fire. I simply cannot believe I have been having this exact same conversation for a week now. This is the last comment on the matter.

Well it's not my last comment.

For starts for someone who puts great weight in the anonymous comments of a supposed NYPD officer, you seem hell bent on ignoring the statements of actual verified members of the FDNY, PANY, and NYPD that WTC 7 was fully engulfed in fire.

I suspect without having double standards you would have no standards.

But I digress the photo is from the Windsor Tower fire in Madrid, it's at night making the flames much easier to see than in the WTC 7 which caught fire and collapsed in daylight.

As regards the possible 911 mural van I have almost as little motivation to continue the discussion. You seem intent on dodging questions and even more so to defend the official 911 Conspiracy Theory even if it means contradicting yourself and constantly moving the goalposts.

Thats one of the most pathetic two faced statements I've ever heard. As to moving the goalposts, you apparently consider it okay to use a alledged radio broadcast of a anonymous NYPD officer as proof a bomb went off on King St yet ignore verified on the record FPNY members that say the WTC 7 was fully engulfed.

I'm dodging questions? Here's a list of questions you've avoided.

If a bomb went off on King St was is there no photos of the damage?

Why are there no statements from residents or business owners about the blast?

Why is there no statements from emergency workers bomb squad teams etc?

The fact is that neither of us know what happened. I make no pretense otherwise but you seem convinced of what happened despite it being very much unknown.

Given both the NYPD radio transmission i.e. the only sources of evidence available and the government official who corroborated it, on record, it is highly probable that there was an "incident" of some kind involving a van which contained a mural of a plane crashing into NY with two occupants who were stopped by the NYPD who called out the bomb squad to the scene.

Despite there being two sources that verify this and absolutely nothing to contradict this you have for some reason, which you refuse to divulge, have decided that you know better.

After that the facts get more murky but we can't even get that far to discuss this as you have rejected the whole incident from the outset despite the evidence being very much against you.

No the facts get non existent.

You seem to think that two different testimonies that say

A) A van with a mural of the attack was stopped and the passengers arrested

A van blew up on King St.

Is proof that a bomb went off on King St. Yet you have no other evidence that support this.

When asked to provide this evidence you claim that perhaps a "gag order" was put in place.

You are asking us to believe a bomb went off on King St. Somehow in the midst of the worst terrorist attack on American soil, the NYPD (who were busy with the evacution of the WTC) or the FBI & CIA (who's field offices were in the WTC 7) swooped in, placed a "gag order" that has lasted for over every civilian and NYPD officer who witnessed the bomb, and every doctor and nurse who treated the injured. Then magically they repaired all damage and evidence of the bomb.

And they did all this because.......

You don't know why.

By all means believe whatever you wan't to believe but I am not interested at all in point scoring excercises and one-upmanship but in having discussions with people who are prepared to explore the evidence with an open mind and let the evidence guide them to conclusions. If that's not you then that's fine but please oblige me and don't respond to me anymore for both our sakes.

Is there any evidence aside from the two contradictory statements from Minetta and the anonymous NYPD officer?

By all means present this evidence.

And should you have some hilarious put-down or hilarious quip save it for someone who cares. Cheers.

I don't necessarily write them for you.

"We have conjecture and speculation, those are kind of like Proof"
- Lionel Hutz, Attorney at Law, the Simpsons.

weisses

Sixtus wrote: »

Well it's not my last comment.

For starts for someone who puts great weight in the anonymous comments of a supposed NYPD officer, you seem hell bent on ignoring the statements of actual verified members of the FDNY, PANY, and NYPD that WTC 7 was fully engulfed in fire.

I suspect without having double standards you would have no standards.

But I digress the photo is from the Windsor Tower fire in Madrid, it's at night making the flames much easier to see than in the WTC 7 which caught fire and collapsed in daylight.




Thats one of the most pathetic two faced statements I've ever heard. As to moving the goalposts, you apparently consider it okay to use a alledged radio broadcast of a anonymous NYPD officer as proof a bomb went off on King St yet ignore verified on the record FPNY members that say the WTC 7 was fully engulfed.

I'm dodging questions? Here's a list of questions you've avoided.

If a bomb went off on King St was is there no photos of the damage?

Why are there no statements from residents or business owners about the blast?

Why is there no statements from emergency workers bomb squad teams etc?



No the facts get non existent.

You seem to think that two different testimonies that say

A) A van with a mural of the attack was stopped and the passengers arrested

A van blew up on King St.

Is proof that a bomb went off on King St. Yet you have no other evidence that support this.

When asked to provide this evidence you claim that perhaps a "gag order" was put in place.

You are asking us to believe a bomb went off on King St. Somehow in the midst of the worst terrorist attack on American soil, the NYPD (who were busy with the evacution of the WTC) or the FBI & CIA (who's field offices were in the WTC 7) swooped in, placed a "gag order" that has lasted for over every civilian and NYPD officer who witnessed the bomb, and every doctor and nurse who treated the injured. Then magically they repaired all damage and evidence of the bomb.

And they did all this because.......

You don't know why.








Is there any evidence aside from the two contradictory statements from Minetta and the anonymous NYPD officer?

By all means present this evidence.



I don't necessarily write them for you.

"We have conjecture and speculation, those are kind of like Proof"
- Lionel Hutz, Attorney at Law, the Simpsons.

Still waiting for the photos of building 7 fully engulfed in flames

Sixtus

Ive shown the photos and provided supporting statements from FDNY members that builsing was fully engulfed in flames

weisses wrote:

Because there is constant footage from building 7 (from the moment the towers fell until the moment building 7 collapsed) the statements from the firefighters can easily be proven wrong[\b]

Youve said tge firefighters xan be “easiy proven wrong“ and that there is “constant footage of the WTC 7 please provide links to support your claims.

weisses

Sixtus wrote: »

Ive shown the photos and provided supporting statements from FDNY members that builsing was fully engulfed in flames




Youve said tge firefighters xan be “easiy proven wrong“ and that there is “constant footage of the WTC 7 please provide links to support your claims.

no you didn't ... Look up what fully engulfed in flames means and come back with proper evidence supporting your claim

Sixtus

weisses wrote: »

no you didn't ... Look up what fully engulfed in flames means and come back with proper evidence supporting your claim

I do it mean exactly what I think and several members of the FDNY think it means. You‘ve said for pages now that Im wrong and the FDNY is wrong. and this is “easily proven“ well prove it show me this constant footage of the WTC which proves FDNY members are wrong when they say they it wad fully engulfed. i am tired of you sogmatically rejectibg these states, back up your rebuttal for a change...

weisses

Sixtus wrote: »

I do it mean exactly what I think and several members of the FDNY think it means. You‘ve said for pages now that Im wrong and the FDNY is wrong. and this is “easily proven“ well prove it show me this constant footage of the WTC which proves FDNY members are wrong when they say they it wad fully engulfed. i am tired of you sogmatically rejectibg these states, back up your rebuttal for a change...

You said there were photos of building 7 fully engulfed in flames ... thats a very specific claim

Show the feckin photos or adjust your evidence accordingly

You are coming up with the same quotes page after page but you are not presenting evidence you claim there is

Its a bit daft that you want badge numbers of policemen quoted here while you cannot even present evidence for your own claims

Can't say im surprised really

knucklehead6

weisses wrote: »

You said there were photos of building 7 fully engulfed in flames ... thats a very specific claim

Show the feckin photos or adjust your evidence accordingly

You are coming up with the same quotes page after page but you are not presenting evidence you claim there is

Its a bit daft that you want badge numbers of policemen quoted here while you cannot even present evidence for your own claims

Can't say im surprised really

How can someone adjust evidence? Surely that's not the thought process of a conspiracy theorist, is it???? :O

Sixtus

So you wont provide the evidence you claim easily disproves firefighters statements about the building being fully engulfed.

or your link to the constant footage of WTC 7 throughout the day.

so you just announce the photos are wrong and the firefighters are wrong but when push comes to shove you have nothing to support your claims.

Brown Bomber

Sixtus wrote: »

Well it's not my last comment.

For starts for someone who puts great weight in the anonymous comments of a supposed NYPD officer, you seem hell bent on ignoring the statements of actual verified members of the FDNY, PANY, and NYPD that WTC 7 was fully engulfed in fire.

I suspect without having double standards you would have no standards..

WTF are you on about now?

never mentioned anything about any firefighters - I was responding to your false claim that smoke was actually fire.

Sixtus wrote: »

it's at night making the flames much easier to see than in the WTC 7 which caught fire and collapsed in daylight. ..

You must be referring to that well known phonemenon of daylight making smoke look like "flames" :pac::pac::pac:

Seriously...give it a rest.

Sixtus wrote: »

Thats one of the most pathetic two faced statements I've ever heard. As to moving the goalposts, you apparently consider it okay to use a alledged radio broadcast of a anonymous NYPD officer as proof a bomb went off on King St yet ignore verified on the record FPNY members that say the WTC 7 was fully engulfed.

Bull****. I never put forward anything as "proof".

Sixtus wrote: »

I'm dodging questions?

Constantly and it's a complete waste of time having any involvement with you.

Sixtus wrote: »

Why are there no statements from residents or business owners about the blast?

Why is there no statements from emergency workers bomb squad teams etc?

I have adressed these and honestly some of your so-called questions don't even deserve an answer. Common sense should tell you that it is procedure for the emergency services to write up reports on these events and therefore the do or at the very least did exist.

Sixtus wrote: »

No the facts get non existent.

Could you please pay more attention to what you write? It is quite difficult to understand what you are saying.

Sixtus wrote: »

You seem to think that two different testimonies that say

A) A van with a mural of the attack was stopped and the passengers arrested

A van blew up on King St.

Is proof that a bomb went off on King St. Yet you have no other evidence that support this.

:rolleyes: I don't think this.

Sixtus wrote: »

You are asking us to believe a bomb went off on King St. Somehow in the midst of the worst terrorist attack on American soil, the NYPD (who were busy with the evacution of the WTC) or the FBI & CIA (who's field offices were in the WTC 7) swooped in, placed a "gag order" that has lasted for over every civilian and NYPD officer who witnessed the bomb, and every doctor and nurse who treated the injured. Then magically they repaired all damage and evidence of the bomb.

And they did all this because.......

You don't know why. .

:rolleyes: Again everything you wrote is bull****. You don't know what I think because you have made no genuine effort to find out through discussion. I never mentioned anything about any injured nor implied any damage at all other than to the truck.

Y'see I actually tried to discuss this with you but you weren't interested
which is why this is such a waste of time

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

never mentioned anything about any firefighters - I was responding to your false claim that smoke was actually fire.

So are you suggesting that assuming that fire is causing all of that smoke is somehow ridiculous?
Can you suggest something more plausible that makes it look like smoke is billowing out of every floor?
And what do you suggest is making all of those firefighters all lie in the exact same way?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

So are you suggesting that assuming that fire is causing all of that smoke is somehow ridiculous?
Can you suggest something more plausible that makes it look like smoke is billowing out of every floor?
And what do you suggest is making all of those firefighters all lie in the exact same way?

:rolleyes: FFS two weeks later and I am still saying that the picture posted WITHOUT ANY FLAMES IS NOT ENGULFED IN FLAMES.

That is all I am saying. No more no less. Do you disagree?

What part of this is so hard to understand?????????????????????

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

:rolleyes: FFS two weeks later and I am still saying that the picture posted WITHOUT ANY FLAMES IS NOT ENGULFED IN FLAMES.

That is all I am saying. No more no less. Do you disagree?

What part of this is so hard to understand?????????????????????

Yes I disagree as the smoke indicates fire.

I don't understand the fact that you think playing dumb to that degree is reasonable.

You don't see any flames, but you see a lot of smoke coming from every floor.
The only thing that can cause this (as you've been unable to provide any alternative explanation) is a lot of fire.
Do you disagree with this?

Brown Bomber

Post the picture and point and describe where you see the flames.

(alternatively waffle on to avoid doing this)

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Post the picture and point and describe where you see the flames.

(alternatively waffle on to avoid doing this)

Lol, once again, you seem to be agruing against your own behaviour.

Where did I say there was flames?
I specifically say that you could not.

However, what you missed was that the only explanation for what is causing that smoke is a lot of fire.
Do you disagree with this?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

I specifically say that you could not.

Terrific. So we are agreed. That the image posted doesn't show any flames as I've had to repeat twenty times now.

Nothing else to say on the matter.

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Terrific. So we are agreed. That the image posted doesn't show any flames as I've had to repeat twenty times now.

Nothing else to say on the matter.

Lol.
But the massive amounts of smoke that is billowing out of the building indicates that the building is engulfed in fire.

This is the point you are pretending doesn't exist and making a fool of yourself by ignoring.

Brown Bomber

This is a joke.

Did diogenes put forward a picture as "engulfed in flames". --- YES
Did the picture actually contain ANY flames at at all ---- NO

Therefore it was a false statement.

Did the picture contain smoke ----YES
Are flames and smoke the same thing ---- NO

Is this difficult to understand ---- NO
Am I an idiot for continuing to point this out --- YES

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This is a joke.

Did diogenes put forward a picture as "engulfed in flames". --- YES
Did the picture actually contain ANY flames at at all ---- NO

Therefore it was a false statement.

Did the picture contain smoke ----YES
Are flames and smoke the same thing ---- NO

Is this difficult to understand ---- NO
Am I an idiot for continuing to point this out --- YES

Again, the smoke indicates a large amount of fire.
Do you disagree?

I'll just assume that you don't if you are going to ignore the question again.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Again, the smoke indicates a large amount of fire.
Do you disagree?

I'll just assume that you don't if you are going to ignore the question again.

The smoke indicates an unknown amount of fire. This is all irrelevant to my only point in relation to the image posted and the absurd claim that that it SHOWED a building "engulfed in flames".

It's no good moving the goalposts now with "this indicates". Which is a far more reasonable claim to be fair but if thats what it shows then at the appropriate and honest thing to do is say "when I said that the building without flames "was engulfed in flames" I was grossly exaggerating and wrong. On reflection what I should have said was "there seems to be a lot of smoke coming from the building. Now I'm no expert but it appears to me that there may be some large fires within the building that haven't made their way to the exterior".

In an honest debate the above would happen. Don't see it happening here though.

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The smoke indicates an unknown amount of fire. This is all irrelevant to my only point in relation to the image posted and the absurd claim that that it SHOWED a building "engulfed in flames".

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It's no good moving the goalposts now with "this indicates".

lol.

So we've finally gotten you to admit that smoke=fire. :rolleyes:

We see a lot of smoke. A lot of smoke indicates a lot of fire.
One way to describe a lot of fire is "engulfed in flames."

I think sixtus' mistake was assume that people would not pretend that this wasn't the case to score points.

weisses

Sixtus wrote: »

So you wont provide the evidence you claim easily disproves firefighters statements about the building being fully engulfed.

Evidence is there ... (large parts of the northside of building 7 never caught fire)

Sixtus wrote: »

or your link to the constant footage of WTC 7 throughout the day.

Not one link ... i state that between all the tv networks ground zero was covered by television the whole day ... creating constant footage ... Do you disagree ?

Sixtus wrote: »

so you just announce the photos are wrong and the firefighters are wrong but when push comes to shove you have nothing to support your claims.

Yes ... take a few steps back buddy ... You claimed there were photos of building 7 fully engulfed in flames ... I asked you to provide these photos to support your claim ... You cannot provide them .... So your claimed evidence doesn't exist so far .....

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

lol.

So we've finally gotten you to admit that smoke=fire. :rolleyes:

When there is alot of smoke with fires usually also indicates that fires are not burning hot

King Mob wrote: »

We see a lot of smoke. A lot of smoke indicates a lot of fire.

Not true (ever burned a lot of leaves in the autumn for example?)

King Mob wrote: »

I think sixtus' mistake was assume that people would not pretend that this wasn't the case to score points.

Claiming building 7 was fully engulfed in flames was the mistake here ... wtc facing side was covered in smoke

Other side had office fires that died out by itself and only on a couple of floors .. .Building 7 was never fully engulfed in flames ... claiming otherwise is ridiculous

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

When there is alot of smoke with fires usually also indicates that fires are not burning hot

Not true (ever burned a lot of leaves in the autumn for example?)

Claiming building 7 was fully engulfed in flames was the mistake here ... wtc facing side was covered in smoke

So what's causing all of that smoke?

weisses wrote: »

Other side had office fires that died out by itself and only on a couple of floors .. .Building 7 was never fully engulfed in flames ... claiming otherwise is ridiculous

Why do the firefighters on the scene all disagree with you?