Skip to content


Firefighters and the “9/11 Truth Movement” – Part One

14 comments

Note:  This is the first part of a 5-part commentary that will run each morning this week.

"Remember the Maine":  Our Love Affair with Conspiracy

I recently ran across a website, apparently under the control of a Seattle firefighter, Erik Lawyer, which asks firefighters to wake up and smell the 9/11 Thermite. Thermite is what 9/11 conspiracists insist was used to destroy the Twin Towers and Building 7. The website is a collection of recycled propaganda delivered in the outraged tone of committed conspiracists who stand ready and able to educate the ignorant and gullible masses about the secret and evil hands guiding our country. It calls for "an investigation" which presumes that no effective investigation has occurred. Lawyer asks, "What are they hiding?" and "Don’t we deserve the truth?" His questions infer either that there is something to hide or the presence of an evil force lying to US citizens.

I usually ignore such trash but it was sent by a non-firefighter with the note "this is legit." Lawyer says that "our communities trust us" and cites that as a reason for firefighters to sign a petition and to become involved in trafficking in absurdities and ridiculous assertions. Such folly can have grave implications. I sincerely hope we know better but I wouldn’t necessarily bet on that.

On February 15, 1898, the US Battleship Maine, moored in Havana Harbor in Cuba, exploded and sank taking with her a majority of the crew. There are at least three potential causes: undetected fire in a forward coal bunker leading to the detonation of black powder stored nearby, the striking of a mine or the intentional sinking of the ship. The second reason, a mine strike, was the one chosen as the pretext to go to war with Spain. Some have favored the more insidious rationale that we deliberately sank our own ship for the same purpose. To this day, despite over a hundred years of investigations, doubts remain. In fact, subsequent investigations, always employing "new" technology have allowed new "facts" and information to surface that fail to substantiate such a conspiracy.

The evidence supports the conclusion that a fire in the coal bunker did indeed ignite black powder and cause a devastating explosion. The continued notion of a deliberate conspiracy over the destruction of the Maine and her crew is evidence of our historical preoccupation with conspiracies as a way of explaining unpleasant events. Those who say we sank our own ship use a sad event to concoct a bogus story for their own gratification. Sound familiar?

Americans have an on-going fascination with the island of Cuba and we are always looking for ways to appropriate it. Ironically, in 1854, 44 years before the Maine, then President Franklin Pierce engaged in a conspiracy with a US diplomatic emissary to wrest Cuba from Spain in what has come to be known as the "Ostend Manifesto." But, more on Presidents and conspiracies tomorrow.

Saying the destruction of the Maine was a deliberate act of the US government or its agents is an earlier example of conspiracists at work. They saw in the catastrophe an omniscient force, one that had the power to shape world history by manipulating events in order to achieve a specific outcome. It is a reoccurring theme of conspiracists who see in great events such as wars, assassinations and even the Great Depression, the invisible hands of nefarious leaders plotting to control the world.

Conspiracists exploit perceived anomalies: any detail that appears to be in any way inconsistent is proof positive that the entire given explanation for an event is a contrived lie. But the method does not explain the madness of conspiracists. Just what is the attraction for those intent on seeing dark and evil shadows all around us?

Part Two:  US Conspiracies: We Can Do That is posted HERE.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *

  • SCFFEMT-P

    The greatest buster of the 9-11 Conspiracy Theories?…..Brannigan’s “Building Construction for the Fire Service”.

  • Pingback: A Series on Conspiracy Theories at FireGeezer | Rogue Medic

  • Thehappymedic

    The best conspiracies are ones that can not be disproven.

  • http://FriendFeed.com/PetrBuben PetrBuben

    911 is controlled demolition therefore inside false flag operation. Per irrefutable scientific evidence, per common sense.

    Sudden onset, symmetric free fall speed collapse midair pulverization. Bodies cremated?? Buildings evaporated? Or they just walked away?

  • Valleytenderfoot

    @PetrBuben:  I am wondering what “irrefutable scientific evidence” you have which shows the collapse of the WTC buildings to be a controlled demolition?  Could you please cite the source(s)?
    As for “sudden onset”, WTC1 was hit at 08:46 and collapsed at 10:28, WTC2 was hit at 09:03 and collapsed at 09:59.  Neither of those seem very “sudden” considering the forces and fire loads involved (certainly not in hindsight at any rate). Times: http://wtc.nist.gov/

    “Buildings evaporated”? Are you implying that all of or a portion of the WTC buildings evaporated? I believe approximately 1 million tons of debris was removed from the WTC site, what portion do you feel evaporated?

  • http://FriendFeed.com/PetrBuben PetrBuben

    Sudden onset.
    By that is meant the moment of the beginning of collapse. Some 10 sec /? later, at 11 floors per second, 3 buildings are gone .. vanished. Pulverized.

    Forces and loads. What forces? 

    Fire? Most of kerosene burned out of the building, WTC 7 wasn’t hit at all.

    Kerosene or office fires do not burn hot enough to melt steel, as you have seen it down at the site burning for months, or on the side of one building.

    Buildings evaporated. 
    Yes, well watch the video, see pictures. Buildings collapsed, vanished.
    http://911investigate.blogspot.com/2011/07/what-is-this-building-just-pulverized.html

    computers, marble, shoes, tables, glass, chairs, cabinets, wall pictures of Bush jr all, ALL evaporated.

    Where is victims bodies? Office or kerosene fires CANNOT cremate human bodies.
    http://911investigate.blogspot.com/2011/05/renown-medical-examiner-expert-witness.html

    http://www.911UnitedWeInvestigate.blogspot.com

    ————————————————————-
    The irrefutable scientific evidence is ALL OVER THE INTERNET. Have you been where? Searching for it? Reading it? Evaluating it?

    Well let me repeat the main lines of irrefutable scientific evidence, leaving aside the common sense notion that if you saw the video, it looks exactly like a controlled demolition, and that is mainly because it is a controlled demolition. Thinking anything else means assailing a common sense.

    the official investigation is demonstrably and intentionally false or nonexistent.

    ok. 
    and add to each line – NOT possible other than controlled demolition of 3 steel skyscrapers.

    1. Sudden onset … 2. Symmetric uniform collapse … 3. Midair pulverization … 4. Free fall speed … 5. Fall into its footprint, through the path of greatest resistance … 6. Victims cremated … 7. Pyroclastic fine dust … 8. Melted iron on the floor of WTC site, burning for months …. 9. Nanothermite explosive found in dust of WTC … 10. Iron spherules found in dust of WTC …

    Some resources to cite: www.911investigate.blogspot.com www.krunchd.com/911 www.ae911truth.org
    http://www.WorldNewsRecord.blogspot.com www.twitter.com/911news

  • Pingback: Firefighters and the “9/11 Truth Movement” – Part Three | Firegeezer

  • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

    PetrBuben,

    Sudden onset?

    What rate of collapse is appropriate for buildings of this size?

    Forces and loads?

    There is a lot of weight on top of the part of the building that is burning. Do you expect to be able to fly a plane into a building, burn that building, and not have it collapse? 

    Buildings evaporated?

    Do you expect that the buildings will collapse, but still be standing? The collapsed building was still there, just in a pile on the ground. The buildings did not evaporate.

    computers, marble, shoes, tables, glass, chairs, cabinets, wall pictures of Bush jr all, ALL evaporated

    Perhaps if you were to talk with someone who worked there searching for bodies, you would not come up with these completely false claims.

    Where is victims bodies? Office or kerosene fires CANNOT cremate human bodies.

    The bodies of many of the people in the buildings were recovered.

    The irrefutable scientific evidence is ALL OVER THE INTERNET. Have you been where? 

    The irrefutable evidence has been refuted by people who actually know what they are doing. Not by people looking for any irregularity and claiming that this is proof of some sort of conspiracy. 

    Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report – Popular Mechanics examines the evidence and consults the experts to refute the most persistent conspiracy theories of September 11.
    Popular Mechanics
    February 3, 2005http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842

  • Valleytenderfoot

    @PetrBuben:
    “Some 10 sec /? later, at 11 floors per second, 3 buildings are gone .. vanished. Pulverized.”

    What was the collapse time for each building?  What are your benchmarks for when the collapse began and was finished? The buildings didn’ “vanish” they collapsed into piles of rubble that were almost 100ft high in places.  Yes, much of the material was pulverized (concrete, gyprock wallboard etc) as would be expected.

    “Forces and loads. What forces?”

    The force imparted by a Boeing 767 weighing 230,000 lbs and travelling between 400 to 500mph crashing into a skyscraper and the effect that had on the structure of the building and the fire protectant coatings on the structural steel.  The fire load including the 10,000 gallons of jet fuel which acted as an accelerant to ignite the contents of the 40,000 square feet of office space (and the significant combustible materials found in most offices) per floor of the WTC.

    “Kerosene or office fires do not burn hot enough to melt steel..”

    Who reported melted steel? Molten metal was reported in a number of places and there is a video of what appears to be molten metal pouring out of WTC2, I believe however it was most likely molten aluminum or some other material.  The steel trusses supporting the floors and the steel columns didn’t have to melt to cause a collapse, they just had to become hot enough to fail.

    “Buildings evaporated.”
    No, they did not!  Evaporation refers to a liquid changing state into a gas, it does not refer to solids, like office buildings. The buildings oxidized, pyrolized, were definitely pulverized, certainly disintegrated, but they did not evaporate or vanish. It appears that English is not your first language and although I applaud you for debating this subject in English, some of your word choices do not make sence.
    I have looked at your web links.  As for sources, I guess I was thinking more along the lines of academic sources, peer reviewed papers by scientists who are experts in their field with valid accreditation,  Those kinds of sources. RogueMedics reference to Popular mechanics below is a good start

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842

     

  • http://FriendFeed.com/PetrBuben PetrBuben

    hi, :]
    simply, the irrefutable evidence and laws of nature FORCE the ONLY explanation: controlled demolition, or enhanced controlled demolition. therefore – inside operation.

    now tedious details

    1. times
    10 and 8 seconds. ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE for anything but controlled demolition+.
    http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/BilliardBalls.html

    2. pile of rubble
    you say it was up to 100 feet. well for a building of 1300 feet, one would expect – my guess- 800 feet of rubble? or more?

    3. NO, the buildings DID vanish and pulverized. disappeared.
    here again, search ctrl f for word “rubble” – http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/BilliardBalls.html

    4. you say “yes concrete pulverized as would be expected” …. well how would you expect concrete to pulverize from building collapse???? and into a fine pyroclastic dust, shooting out into streets … do you realize what fairy tales you are preaching here ???

    5 forces of impact
    buildings were SPECIFICALLY designed to withstand impact of airliners
    as you saw, they remained standing – as expected … nothing happened to them. some beams were cut. huge kerosone fireballs burned outside.

    6. fires, as you saw, burned on only several floors, not as you say throught the all space, and
     were cooler fires, judging from smoke that was black, not white

    for heavens sake, WHAT IS  “the significant combustible materials found in most offices” as you say ??? a coffee?? napkins? wood?

    7. melted steel ? reported by pfotographs on it at the  Wtc site .. have you seen them? do i need ot search for them … bright ball of fire molten steel burning for 3 months … so that is your molten steel

    Now one -true- for what you say – office or kerosene fires do can weaken the steel up to a point of fatigue/failure… IN THAT CASE, however, we’d see an IRREGUALR, slow collapse, and NOT in the path of greatest resistace – through itself, straight in its footprint ….. do you realize what fairy tales you are preaching here? …or they had you believe in?

    No, English is not my native language, i was born abroad. I am a US citizen now, however.

    That said, i still feel, and want to feel, little different from born US citizens. I just came to this county, so i do not mind claiming less, or different, merits and rewards  …

    That will not prevent me in NO way speaking my mind, saying what i think its the truth.

    I did not fear or mind saying the truth and my mind during communism and to communists, and i certainly will not mind it now, in USA.

    have a good day:]
    petr

    scientific links
    http://www.ae911truth.org
    http://www.stj911.org
    also
    http://www.DrJudyWood.com, http://wheredidthetowersgo.com/

    rubble comparison
    http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/HTR/web-content/Pages/HTRHome.html

    and so forth, following links

  • http://FriendFeed.com/PetrBuben PetrBuben

    hi:] .. my comments under >>>>>>>>>>

    Sudden onset?What rate of collapse is appropriate for buildings of this size?
    >>>>>>>> for controlled demolitions, its the speed of free fall. thats how its programmed so that rubble lays in its footprints, doesnt have time to fall sidewise.
    of sourse though it can be slowed down.

    otherwise, i DO NOT KNOW how or why would “building of this size” collapse .. it wouldnt be because of planes impact, though .. that was designed for

    Forces and loads?There is a lot of weight on top of the part of the building that is burning. Do you expect to be able to fly a plane into a building, burn that building, and not have it collapse? 
    >>>>>>>>>> EXACTLY. ..also designers and engineers expected that planes wont cause sudden catastrphic total collapse into its footrpints.

    now architects and engineers and designers are trying to figure out how and why in the hell those buildings could fall, and  the way they did.

    government and government agencies and engineers are stalling, covering, not cooperating in this effort.

    Buildings evaporated?Do you expect that the buildings will collapse, but still be standing? The collapsed buildings were still there, just in piles on the ground. The buildings did not evaporate.
    >>>>>>>>> EXACTLY. if buildings collapsed, theyd STILL BE THERE. toppled over.
    buildings evaporated.
    http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/BilliardBalls.html

    http://wheredidthetowersgo.com/

    computers, marble, shoes, tables, glass, chairs, cabinets, wall pictures of Bush jr all, ALL evaporated? Perhaps if you were to talk with someone who worked there searching for bodies, you would not come up with these completely false claims.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see pictures. there is practically no rubble, no remains of anything over there
    http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/BilliardBalls.html
     
    http://wheredidthetowersgo.com/

    those buildings housed 40 000 people, had their own zip code.

    http://www.ae911truth.org

    Where is victims bodies? Office or kerosene fires CANNOT cremate human bodies.The bodies of many of the people in the buildings were recovered.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i am not aware of that .. 3000 people ..victims … where did they go ???

    http://911investigate.blogspot.com/2011/05/renown-medical-examiner-expert-witness.html

    **********************************************

    this is a VERY POWERFUL video by a decorated US scientist, if you dont mind
    http://911investigate.blogspot.com/2011/05/essential-dr-bob-bowman-decorated.html

    **********************************************

    The irrefutable scientific evidence is ALL OVER THE INTERNET. Have you been where? The irrefutable evidence has been refuted by people who actually know what they are doing. Not by people looking for any irregularity and claiming that this is proof of some sort of conspiracy. 

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you cannot refute irrefutable :/
    or youd have to violate laws of physics on planet earth. as per one

    yes they “know” what they are doing .. listening to orders of supervisors, taking orders from government. that is no science. thats a FRAUD.

    AGAIN
    1.nanothermite
    2. free fall speeds
    3. sudden onset, uniform fall
    4. evaporation, disappearance of buildings

    5. building WTC 7, never even mentioned nowhere in official crime stories

    Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report – Popular Mechanics examines the evidence and consults the experts to refute the most persistent conspiracy theories of September 11.Popular MechanicsFebruary 3, 2005http://www.popularmechanics.co…i will not look again on this site .. i do not have time

    petr

  • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

    PetrBuben,

    hi, :]
    simply, the irrefutable evidence and laws of nature FORCE the ONLY explanation: controlled demolition, or enhanced controlled demolition. therefore – inside operation.

    You keep using words like irrefutable and impossible. You do not appear to understand these words. You assume a lot, but you prove nothing.

    now tedious details

    1. times 
    10 and 8 seconds. ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE for anything but controlled demolition+.
    http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/BilliardBalls.html

    Let’s use an example of the proof provided at the site PetrBuben links to.

    If there was enough kinetic energy for pulverization, there will be pancaking or pulverization, but not both.  For one thing, that energy can only be spent once.

    If a large object, such as the top of a building, falls on something else, it has to assign all of its kinetic energy to either pancaking or pulverization. For some reason, some of that mass cannot provide one, while some of the other mass provides the other? 

    Why not?

    When does the building have to make this choice?

    Where is there any evidence to support this arbitrary claim?

    If a bullet travels through a body, does it have to choose what forces it delivers to the body? That is a much simpler example, but the bullet can provide more than one force and still just be one projectile passing through the body and delivering tremendous damage on its way through.

    Eureka! Gun shot wounds are government conspiracies.

    -

    2. pile of rubble
    you say it was up to 100 feet. well for a building of 1300 feet, one would expect – my guess- 800 feet of rubble? or more?

    3. NO, the buildings DID vanish and pulverized. disappeared.
    here again, search ctrl f for word “rubble” – http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/BilliardBalls.html

    Where are there any images of buildings that collapsed and there are not any people claiming that they were controlled demolitions? Compare the rubble from these with the rubble from 9/11, then show us the comparison.

    Without this kind of comparison of the rubble, or the collapse, or anything else, all of this is just speculation.

    Speculation does not justify the use of the words impossible or irrefutable. Your claims are just speculation.

    .

  • Anonymous

    @PetrBuben

    1. Please provide a link for the video you used to time the collapse sequence to arrive at those quoted times (the VIDEO, not the ae911 website, their vids are INCOMPLETE and therefore it is impossible for anyone to actually time the entire collapse from those videos)

    2.  Why on earth would you expect a pile of rubble 2/3 as high as the original structure? That is absurd. 

    3.  Here is an example of the rubble pile remaining after the collapse
    Have a look at these pics http://media.photobucket.com/image/wtc%20debris/ardoucette/wtc-5123.jpg?o=1#!oZZ4QQcurrentZZhttp%3A%2F%2Fmedia.photobucket.com%2Fimage%2Fwtc%20debris%2Fardoucette%2Fwtc-5277.jpg%3Fo%3D4
    That sure looks like a LOT of rubble to me (steel AND concrete, and other material)

    4. Yes, concrete was pulverized, no not every single bit of concrete was turned to dust in fact most was turned into gravel or chunks of various sizes, just look at the pictures!  And the dust was NOT PYROCLASTIC, your continued use of that word displays a significant level of ignorance. The term is oft used because it sounds so scary and impressive, however it is quite inaccurate. The dust clouds may have had vague similarities in appearance to a pyroclastic flow but the dust cloud from the collapse of WTC1 and 2 was most certainly not volcanic in origin, ie. it was not made up of molten rock, volcanic ash and ejecta; it was not hot; it did not come from a volcano.  The dust clouds LOOK like a lot of things, that doesn’t mean they ARE those things.  What they resembled most was the massive dust cloud from a collapsing building.

    5.NO THEY WERE NOT! WTC1 and 2 were specifically designed to be OFFICE BUILDINGS.  The designers contemplated the possibility of aircraft impacts and some study was performed in the 1960′s based on impact of a Boeing 707 at low speed (ie landing speed as that was felt to be the most likely scenario, a 707 lost in the fog as it came in to JFK or Newark) and the designers felt the buildings could withstand that impact. HOWEVER, that was not what occurred on 9/11  reference: http://www.jod911.com/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf

    6. Petr, on what do you base your intimate knowledge of smoke color and how it relates to the temperature of a fire or what is burning in said fire?

    Combustible materials in an office building: maybe the desks, chairs, almost all furnishings actually, carpets, computers, printers, paper (you remember seeing the paper right?) wall hangings, curtains, cubicle partitions, NOT the coffee so much but definitely the  coffee whitener (google Mythbusters for a vid on flammable coffee whitener)

    Here is a definition of fire load: http://www.aisc.org/DynamicTaxonomyFAQs.aspx?id=1994
    Please note that wood is the fuel equivalent used in fire load ratings; it has about 8,000btu/lb heat value. Plastic has about 18-20,000btu/lb
     
    Here is a link for a typical office fire test in a steel frame building
    http://www.vulcan-solutions.com/cardington.html#office

    7. The molten metal seen pouring from WTC2 was determined to be most likely molten aluminum from the plane mixed with various other materials that it collected as it flowed through the structure. Regarding the pile: A “bright ball of fire” does not equal molten steel. What expert tested the molten material and determined it was molten steel?  And even if it was molten steel, a controlled demo using top secret nanothermitic compounds is not the only explanation (and certainly not the most plausible, given the circumstances.) 

  • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

    PetrBuben,

    Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report – Popular Mechanics examines the evidence and consults the experts to refute the most persistent conspiracy theories of September 11.Popular MechanicsFebruary 3,2005http://www.popularmechanic……i will not look again on this site .. i do not have time

    petr

    Yet you have time to cut and paste your illogical ranting.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you cannot refute irrefutable :/
    or youd have to violate laws of physics on planet earth. as per one

    To correct that statement - 

    You cannot explain something to someone who refuses to understand. 

    As valleytenderfoot points out, pyroclastic dust comes from volcanoes. Are you claiming that a volcano brought down the WTC and then evaporated?

    You state that the buildings were designed to handle the impact of a plane. So what. They did. They later collapsed due to the further weakening of the frame of the building due to fire.

    If the molten-looking stuff coming out of the window had been molten steel, wouldn’t the building have collapsed before that point, rather than after?