Car Bomb at Pentagon on 9/11

Sixtus · 03-03-2013 1:02am

weisses wrote: »

Still waiting for the photographic evidence you claimed of building 7 fully engulfed in flames ........ still waiting

Or maybe you don't know what fully engulfed means ??

i showed, photos of smoie billowing from every floor, th massive damage and the supporting accounts from dozens od fire fighters who seacribe WTC 7 as fully engulfed.

you have dismisssed the firefighters as ““wrong“ without explaining how you have come to that conclusion.

You ignore the photo of the smoke billowing from every floor which could only happen if the buijding was fully invnlved.

unless you actually address those two points there is littl point continuing the conversation with you

Sixtus · 03-03-2013 1:07am

weisses wrote: »

The irony ....:o

Theres is no irony I provided photos and the eye witnesses I quoted all gave their names and went on the record.

its not my fault that you

A dont understand irony

and

B are intelligent enough to understand the different levels of evidence beinf supplied by both sides. BB has a ubaned unidentified alledged NYPD officer backing up his claim a car bomb went off in the village Thats thw only suppoeting evidenxe he has. its pathetic

Brown Bomber · 03-03-2013 1:10am

Sixtus wrote: »

This getting boring BB can you provide any evidence
Aside from this un named alledged NYPD officer that a car bomb went on King st?

Photos anything

Right - so you can't tell the difference between the same street in two photos when one has been the recent scene of a carbomb and the other one hasn't but we are supposed to just carry on regardless and ignore this inconvenient fact.

Correct me if I am wrong but your dancing aroud this simple task clearly says that you cannot tell the difference.

That's where we are yeah?

King Mob · 03-03-2013 1:15am

BB, is there any chance that you'll be going back and answering my questions you've ignored in a straightforward and honest way?
Like you demanded of me, while ignoring the answers I gave?

Can you explain why the van had a mural? Yes or no?
Can you explain why the van could have a mural then also be innocent? Yes or no?

So is it impossible for a police officer to mistake something innocuous (like say an advertisement for a delievery company that has a plane flying over New York) for something more sinister? Yes or no?

Is it impossible for a police officer to mishear something or to repeat a erroneous report? Yes or no?

Brown Bomber · 03-03-2013 1:39am

King Mob wrote: »

BB, is there any chance that you'll be going back and answering my questions you've ignored in a straightforward and honest way?
Like you demanded of me, while ignoring the answers I gave?

Don't take this the wrong way but I won't be doing that as it's utterly pointless. We have two sources of information on this - Just two! Both of them say that there was a mural of a plane crashing into buildings. That's ALL OF THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE!!!

If you cannot accept that the totality of available evidence and want to replace it with fairytales then it is hopeless as far as having a discussion is concerned.

Brown Bomber · 03-03-2013 1:41am

Sixtus wrote: »

You ignore the photo of the smoke billowing from every floor

Formerly known as "the photo of the building engulfed in flames" :pac:

Sixtus · 03-03-2013 1:41am

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Right - so you can't tell the difference between the same street in two photos when one has been the recent scene of a carbomb and the other one hasn't but we are supposed to just carry on regardless and ignore this inconvenient fact.

Correct me if I am wrong but your dancing aroud this simple task clearly says that you cannot tell the difference.

That's where we are yeah?

no where we are is six pages of more nonsense from you about this imaginary car bombing on king street. asside drom the anoymous,alledged NYPD officer reporting the supposed bomb you have absoluetly no other evisence. your prevaraction, goalpost shifting, and odiously pathetic attempts to avoid this is gettibg dull.

there was no bomb on king street, theres no evidence to support this.

Brown Bomber · 03-03-2013 1:43am

Sixtus wrote: »

no where we are is six pages of more nonsense from you about this imaginary car bombing on king street. asside drom the anoymous,alledged NYPD officer reporting the supposed bomb you have absoluetly no other evisence. your prevaraction, goalpost shifting, and odiously pathetic attempts to avoid this is gettibg dull.

there was no bomb on king street, theres no evidence to support this.

Again,

Can you tell the difference?

King Mob · 03-03-2013 2:08am

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Don't take this the wrong way but I won't be doing that as it's utterly pointless. We have two sources of information on this - Just two! Both of them say that there was a mural of a plane crashing into buildings. That's ALL OF THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE!!!

If you cannot accept that the totality of available evidence and want to replace it with fairytales then it is hopeless as far as having a discussion is concerned.

But those questions specifically address these points.
The offer an alternative explanation, that makes far more sense and in much more consistent than the one you are suggesting.

What fairy tales am I suggesting?
That a police officer is capable to misidentifying something innocent as sinister?
That a police officer is capable to mishearing something and repeating erronous reports?

Please indicate which of these is impossible or unlikely or a fairy tale and explain how.

Simply declaring my argument invalid, but then refusing to address a single point I've made is not a discussion.

weisses · 03-03-2013 1:09pm

Sixtus wrote: »

Theres is no irony I provided photos and the eye witnesses I quoted all gave their names and went on the record.

No you didn't show me photo's of the building fully engulfed in flames because you don't understand the meaning of the word "engulfed"

You can quote all you want but all the evidence is showing that the building was never fully engulfed in flames ... why are you using dishonest testimonies ??

Sixtus wrote: »

its not my fault that you

B are intelligent enough to understand the different levels of evidence beinf supplied by both sides. BB has a ubaned unidentified alledged NYPD officer backing up his claim a car bomb went off in the village Thats thw only suppoeting evidenxe he has. its pathetic

Indeed its not your fault ...

Im glad you agree that i am intelligent enough to understand the different levels of evidence .... Means a lot for me to see you state that

weisses · 03-03-2013 1:12pm

King Mob wrote: »

Simply declaring my argument invalid, but then refusing to address a single point I've made is not a discussion.

I would love to engage again in this discussion if you are able to put on the table some evidence that supports your theory

Sixtus · 03-03-2013 1:52pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Again,

Can you tell the difference?

I asked you to show any other evidence aside of a car bomb on king street asside from the anonymous alledged NYPD officer first. can you do that?

Sixtus · 03-03-2013 1:59pm

weisses wrote: »

No you didn't show me photo's of the building fully engulfed in flames because you don't understand the meaning of the word "engulfed"

I do. You dont seem to understand that a building with smoke billowing from every floor is fully enfulfed.

You can quote all you want but all the evidence is showing that the building was never fully engulfed in flames ... why are you using dishonest testimonies ??
[

Dishonest testimonies? Are you suggesting the firefighters are lying?

What evidence do you have the building wasnt fully engulfed before its collapse?

Indeed its not your fault ...

Im glad you agree that i am intelligent enough to understand the different levels of evidence .... Means a lot for me to see you state that

I see you arent able to spot sarcasm. ..

King Mob · 03-03-2013 4:06pm

weisses wrote: »

I would love to engage again in this discussion if you are able to put on the table some evidence that supports your theory

I have several time explained the reasons for my position and explained clearly how it is more reasonable and more likely than the explanations you and BB are half providing.

If you really want to engage in discussion, stop pretending I have not done this.

Brown Bomber · 03-03-2013 5:00pm

Sixtus wrote: »

I do. You dont seem to understand that a building with smoke billowing from every floor is fully enfulfed. .

... in smoke; not flames.

You do accept that that there is a difference between smoke and flames right?

Even then the "billowing from every floor" is a gross exaggeration. Due to the nature of smoke and how it reacts with the atmosphere it is not possible to tell which floors it is coming from.

King Mob · 03-03-2013 5:09pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

... in smoke; not flames.

You do accept that that there is a difference between smoke and flames right?

So what do you propose is causing all of that smoke?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Even then the "billowing from every floor" is a gross exaggeration. Due to the nature of smoke and how it reacts with the atmosphere it is not possible to tell which floors it is coming from.

If only we had a long list of reports by named experts on the scene that all confirm the exact same thing....

Brown Bomber · 03-03-2013 5:23pm

Sixtus wrote: »

I asked you to show any other evidence aside of a car bomb on king street asside from the anonymous alledged NYPD officer first. can you do that?

I cannot. However, it is more evidence that the government has provided via Minetta.

Correct me if I am wrong but your whole argument hinges on the evidence of absence?

Which is why if we are to have an honest discussion it's crucial that you answer (if you can, or admit that you can't) the question that you have been dodging.

According the the Policeman's description who was at the scene in this order:

The van was stopped
The ESU and Bomb Squad were called in
The area was evacuated
The occupants fled
There was an explosion in the van.
The men were apprehended

If your argument is along the lines of there would certainly be other evidence that this happened then you need to say exactly what,

You have said: "where are the casualties?" - Why would there be any when the van was empty according to the Police Officer and the area was evacuated?

What else would there certainly be?

Why don't you have the integrity to make the distinction between the scene of a carbomb and an innocent scene or admit that you cannot?

King Mob · 03-03-2013 5:27pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Which is why if we are to have an honest discussion that you answer (if you can, or admit that you can't) the question that you have been dodging.

According the the Policeman's description who was at the scene in this order:

One of the many questions you've been dodging and refusing to admit you can't, is how do you know that the officer who makes this report (though the officer in the audio actually say all of these things) was the one who saw all of them?
You are just assuming that he isn't reporting something second hand.

Brown Bomber · 03-03-2013 5:29pm

King Mob wrote: »

So what do you propose is causing all of that smoke?

I don't. This is getting absolutely ridiculous. Why are we even discussing this when an inept child could tell you that there are no flames in that photo nevermind "engulfed"?

Brown Bomber · 03-03-2013 5:35pm

King Mob wrote: »

One of the many questions you've been dodging and refusing to admit you can't, is how do you know that the officer who makes this report (though the officer in the audio actually say all of these things) was the one who saw all of them?
You are just assuming that he isn't reporting something second hand.

Having actually listened to the recording I can happily tell you that you are mistaken. The Officer who describes the mural/fleeing/explosion says "we have got them under (arrest) HERE" and "We need the Bomb Squad over HERE" and so on while the Team Leader guy who is talking to him on the radio ask him "are YOU okay over THERE" etc.

Now that that's been cleared up does that change your dogmatic refusal to budge an inch from the offical conspiracy theory of 9/11..........nah............didn't think so..........as you were..........

In other words it can be said that the word ‘here’ is used to indicate something that is within the range of one’s vision, whereas the word ‘there’ on the other hand is used to indicate something that is out of the range of one’s vision. This is the main difference between the two words ‘here’ and ‘there’.

Read more: http://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-here-and-there-in-english-grammar/#ixzz2MUmi5w5A

King Mob · 03-03-2013 5:50pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I don't. This is getting absolutely ridiculous. Why are we even discussing this when an inept child could tell you that there are no flames in that photo nevermind "engulfed"?

Well the most logical explanation for the smoke is fire, and you seem unable to provide a more likely explanation.
And since the fires are confirmed by many many experts on the ground, all saying the exact same thing...

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Having actually listened to the recording I can happily tell you that you are mistaken. The Officer who describes the mural/fleeing/explosion says "we have got them under (arrest) HERE" and "We need the Bomb Squad over HERE" and so on while the Team Leader guy who is talking to him on the radio ask him "are YOU okay over THERE" etc.

Now that that's been cleared up does that change your dogmatic refusal to budge an inch from the offical conspiracy theory of 9/11..........nah............didn't think so..........as you were..........

So again, how do you know that he was actually there to see all of these things?
Or are you just assuming he was?

Isn't it possible that he is not the first officer on the scene, but instead just the one reporting it at that time?
Then wouldn't it also be possible that his is reporting erroneous information?

Or are you just going to dogmatically cling to your conspiracy and not consider alternatives?

Brown Bomber · 03-03-2013 6:20pm

King Mob wrote: »

Well the most logical explanation for the smoke is fire, and you seem unable to provide a more likely explanation.
And since the fires are confirmed by many many experts on the ground, all saying the exact same thing...

Ah for crying out loud... All I am saying is that the photo of building 7 posted by Sixtus purporting to be "engulfed in flames" was nothing of the sort. We both know I am right so what else is there left to say?

King Mob wrote: »

So again, how do you know that he was actually there to see all of these things?
Or are you just assuming he was?

Isn't it possible that he is not the first officer on the scene, but instead just the one reporting it at that time?
Then wouldn't it also be possible that his is reporting erroneous information?

Or are you just going to dogmatically cling to your conspiracy and not consider alternatives?

This is getting beyond I joke. Correct me if I am wrong but this is your half-baked sequence of events:

The scene is New York City on the say of the September 11th attacks.
Reports come into the NYPD of a van driving around NY displaying a mural depicting a plane crashing into NY.
These reports are mistakes.
The NYPD somehow find and stops this van containing the mural even though the van doesn't have the mural.
These innocent occupants of the van are apprehended by an NYPD Officer.
This NYPD Officer doesn't inform anybody else about his arrest of these innocent men.
Sometime later another NYPD Officer arrives on the scene.
He somehow imagines that the van has the mural.
He somehow imagines that the occupants fled (even though he wasn't there)
He somehow imagines that there was an explosion from the van (even though he wasn't there)
He wrongly communicates this information over his Police radio.
He stupidly arranges for the arrival of the bomb squad and ESU
The original officer hears this but doesn't contradict this false information.
Everyone lives happily ever after.

King Mob · 03-03-2013 6:46pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Ah for crying out loud... All I am saying is that the photo of building 7 posted by Sixtus purporting to be "engulfed in flames" was nothing of the sort. We both know I am right so what else is there left to say?

Again, the photo shows a lot of smoke pouring from the building. The only explanation for this smoke is a lot of fire.
Unless you have a better explanation for this smoke then his description is accurate and backed up by dozens of eyewitness reports.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This is getting beyond I joke. Correct me if I am wrong but this is your half-baked sequence of events:

I'm not sure if you genuinely don't understand my point or just are that desperate to make a strawman.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The scene is New York City on the say of the September 11th attacks.

Reports come into the NYPD of a van driving around NY displaying a mural depicting a plane crashing into NY.

These reports are mistakes.

The NYPD somehow find and stops this van containing the mural even though the van doesn't have the mural.

I have repeatedly stated in as clear and as varied terms as possible that I believe that it is likely that the police misinterpreted an advertisement or similar.
I did not once ever say that the van had nothing on it.

Is it impossible for a police officer to misinterpret something innocuous as sinister? Yes or no?
Is it impossible for someone from the general public to do this? Yes or no?
Is it impossible that the person from the public might have given a description of the vehicle, it's location and it's licence plate? Yes or no?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

These innocent occupants of the van are apprehended by an NYPD Officer.

This NYPD Officer doesn't inform anybody else about his arrest of these innocent men.

Sometime later another NYPD Officer arrives on the scene.

He somehow imagines that the van has the mural.

He somehow imagines that the occupants fled (even though he wasn't there)

I did not say that that the first officer on the scene did not report the arrests. Nor did I say anyone imagined anything

The first officer on the scene could well have reported the arrests over the radio, just on a different channel and to a different person than the one from which the radio audio was recorded. While the task of updating the command centre or whatever the audio was a snippet from was delegated to an officer that arrived later and who mistakenly believed that there was an explosion.

Is this impossible, yes or no?
Can you show any evidence that the officer speaking on the radio was in fact the one who saw this supposed explosion, yes or no?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

He somehow imagines that there was an explosion from the van (even though he wasn't there)

He wrongly communicates this information over his Police radio.

He stupidly arranges for the arrival of the bomb squad and ESU

Again I did not say that he imagined an explosion.
I said clearly and in several different ways to get you to try and understand that he could misheard something from another officer or over the radio which he believed was someone saying that the van had exploded. Or that he misspoke.

Is this impossible, yes or no?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The original officer hears this but doesn't contradict this false information.

Everyone lives happily ever after.

And again, we don't know whether or not he contradicted this false information as the radio audio stops before such a correction could have occurred. And it would not be the first time conspiracy theorists have edited out annoying facts.

Is this impossible, yes or no?

What is a joke is that you are demanding that I answer questions straightforwardly and honestly, then ignore those answers, then go on to dodge question after question even when they are framed as a simple yes or no.
And then go on to say I'm stalling the discussion...

Sixtus · 06-03-2013 12:54am

Brown Bomber wrote: »

... in smoke; not flames.

You do accept that that there is a difference between smoke and flames right?

I accept thats it's impossible to have the former without the latter.

Even then the "billowing from every floor" is a gross exaggeration. Due to the nature of smoke and how it reacts with the atmosphere it is not possible to tell which floors it is coming from.

As I understand it smoke is lighter than air and therefore rises. That means that their can not be fires below the smoke. And the fact that there is smoke coming continuous from the building means the fires must be either engulfing, or near engulfing, combined with the statements from numerous FDNY, PDNY and Port authority staff that the building was fully engulfed leads me to believe that the building was fully engulfed.

So here we have it. Photography evidence supported by members of the FDNY and other agencies who are named and stand over their statements.

Lets compare that to...

(A Vab with) The scene is New York City on the say of the September 11th attacks.

Aside from confused police reports on the day no such evidence that a van like this existed (keeping in mind in Washington DC claims of a car bomb near the capital circulated on the day).

A van explodes on King Street

Leaving aside the fact that we do not know the identity of the officer (sorry alleged officer) who called in this "supposed bombing".

There is no evidence of a bomb going off on king street.

There are no supporting statements from passerbys or residents or business owners who saw a bomb going off.

No other NYPD officers named or otherwise support the claim, including the bomb squad who were apparently called to the scene.

BB to quote Bart Simpson "I'm not calling you a liar it's just I have a problem finishing this sentence..."

weisses · 06-03-2013 9:26am

Sixtus wrote: »

I accept thats it's impossible to have the former without the latter.

As I understand it smoke is lighter than air and therefore rises. That means that their can not be fires below the smoke. And the fact that there is smoke coming continuous from the building means the fires must be either engulfing, or near engulfing, combined with the statements from numerous FDNY, PDNY and Port authority staff that the building was fully engulfed leads me to believe that the building was fully engulfed.

So here we have it. Photography evidence supported by members of the FDNY and other agencies who are named and stand over their statements.

Again .. you believe firemen stating the building was fully engulfed in flames

again there is no evidence supporting that claim .. you are saying there is but somehow fails to provide it

In fact the building wasn't even fully engulfed in smoke because i see you are already backpedaling on your claims

I suggest you do some research as in what fully engulfed means and come back then to discuss properly

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

weisses · 06-03-2013 1:40pm

King Mob wrote: »

I have several time explained the reasons for my position and explained clearly how it is more reasonable and more likely than the explanations you and BB are half providing.

If you really want to engage in discussion, stop pretending I have not done this.

I understand your reasons

Wouldn't expect a child to agree with me either when i tell him Santa is not real
despite all the arguments the child will throw at me to convince me he does exist

Sixtus · 06-03-2013 2:33pm

weisses wrote: »

Again .. you believe firemen stating the building was fully engulfed in flames

again there is no evidence supporting that claim .. you are saying there is but somehow fails to provide it

So they're wrong they're incapable of understanding what fully engulfed means?

When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories.
–FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myer

Firefighter Tiernach Cassidy "It looked like heavy fire on seven floors. It was fully engulfed, that whole building." - you could see the flames going straight through from one side of the building to the other, that’s an entire block.

–PAPD P.O. William Connor "the fires in building 7 were uncontrollable and that its collapse was imminent."

Assistant Commissioner James Drury who said " There were hundreds of firefighters waiting to -- they were waiting for 7 World Trade Center to come down as it was on fire. It was too dangerous to go in and fight the fire."

Firefighter Steve Modica who said "7 World Trade was burning from the ground to the ceiling fully involved. It was unbelievable."

And PAPD K-9 Sergeant David who said "So I attempted to get in through the Barkley Street ramp which is on Barkley (sic) and West Broadway, but I was being held back by the fire department, because 7 World Trade, which is above the ramp, was now fully engulfed."

Oh and one more, FDNY Capt. Jay Jonas, "At the same time, No. 5 World Trade Center, No. 6 World Trade Center and No. 7 World Trade Center were roaring. They were on fire. And they were right next to us. So we have all that smoke that we’re dealing with."

Notice they use specific terms like "fully engulfed", "Roaring", "fully involved"

In fact the building wasn't even fully engulfed in smoke because i see you are already backpedaling on your claims

I suggest you do some research as in what fully engulfed means and come back then to discuss properly

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

Really please provide a link to this constant footage.

King Mob · 06-03-2013 4:39pm

weisses wrote: »

I understand your reasons

Wouldn't expect a child to agree with me either when i tell him Santa is not real
despite all the arguments the child will throw at me to convince me he does exist

Instead or resorting to super mature insults, maybe you can point out what exactly about my explanation is impossible or unlikely.
I have done this for the conspiracy narrative and those points were ignored.

weisses · 06-03-2013 6:30pm

King Mob wrote: »

Instead or resorting to super mature insults, maybe you can point out what exactly about my explanation is impossible or unlikely.
I have done this for the conspiracy narrative and those points were ignored.

King Mob wrote: »

Not particularly as you have no interest in discussing it. And experience tells me you will be unable to attempt as such like an adult[.QUOTE]

I just made sure i lived up to your expectations ..

Brown Bomber · 06-03-2013 7:06pm

Sixtus wrote: »

I accept thats it's impossible to have the former without the latter.

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".

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.

Sixtus wrote: »

As I understand it smoke is lighter than air and therefore rise s. That means that their can not be fires below the smoke.

I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant the opposite of what you actually said.

Sixtus wrote: »

And the fact that there is smoke coming continuous from the building

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.

Sixtus wrote: »

means the fires must be either engulfing, or near engulfing,

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.

Sixtus wrote: »

Aside from confused police reports on the day no such evidence that a van like this existed

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"?

Sixtus wrote: »

There is no evidence of a bomb going off on king street.

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

Sixtus wrote: »

There are no supporting statements from passerbys or residents or business owners who saw a bomb going off.

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

Sixtus wrote: »

No other NYPD officers named or otherwise support the claim, including the bomb squad who were apparently called to the scene.

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

Sixtus wrote: »

BB to quote Bart Simpson "I'm not calling you a liar it's just I have a problem finishing this sentence..."

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

Car Bomb at Pentagon on 9/11

Comments