Police officer on 9/11: 'The building is about to blow up'

those are his words. or literally, the smoking gun.
he is the 2nd witness in this video clip. the others are equally damning.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKvtWF4AJjE


original CNN footage:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9CXQY-bZn4

1. Policemen are experts in controlled demolition.
2. Explosions can only result from bombs.
3. If someone says a building is about to blow up, that can only mean controlled demolition.
4. The fact that the policeman in the film has apparently not come forward later and joined the "truth movement" doesn't really mean anything.
5. The fact that controlled demolition teams were part of the clean-up and did not see or report a single detonator, piece of det cord or any other evidence of a controlled demolition doesn't mean anything.


Here's an interesting question, dude. If your claim was true, wouldn't you expect the policeman to say, "the building is about to be blown up" instead of "the building is about to blow up"? It's posts like these that continue to contribute to the self-marginalization of the "truth movement".
Stupid post, dude.

* the officer said the building is about to blow up.
a few seconds later, the building comes down.


* the first responder said there was a countdown just before Building 7 came down.

the guy being quoted about the "countdown" isn't a first responder. You can tell by the lack of a uniform, dude. Ask yourself a question. If this guy claims he clearly heard a countdown, why hasn't anyone else?


Beyond that, why doesn't the policeman say a single thing about bombs or explosives? It's also silly (and frankly stupid) to claim that the phrase "blow up" only has one meaning. I was in a very contentious meeting the other day that escalated into a rather heated argument. People later described the meeting as having "blown up". Does that mean they believed it was blown up with explosives or bombs?

Your stupid quote-mining is making the "truth movement" out to be a laughingstock, dude.

The first responder was interviewed after 9/11 about his experience, which is why he was out of uniform.

How would the officer know the building is about to come down?
Blow up or not, no one should have known the precise moment the building was about to come down.

But of course, the standard IHOPer response is always: they are all lying.

Keep digging that hole.

You're talking about Kevin McPadden who described himself as a "Former Air Force Special Operations for Search and Rescue" who travelled to Ground Zero of his own accord. That means he was not there ion any official capacity, so how you think that makes him a "first responder" is beyond me.

As far as WTC7, the FDNY had been watching the building for hours and had established a collapse perimeter around it hours before it came down. FDNY also reported the building was extremely unstable and was making creaking and moaning noises well before it came down. When those noises increased in intensity and frequency, the fact that you would be surprised that people would surmise it was coming down right before it actually did is laughable. There's also an element of selective perception on your part. How do you know that people on the scene did not mistakenly predict its imminent demise only to be wrong earlier throughout the day?

I've recommended critical thinking classes to you before. You'd probably benefit from them. Your local community college will have them.

you have outdone Bazant and his fantabulous pancake theory with that one. lol.

simply because he wasn't being paid for his volunteer work?
He travels all the way to Ground Zero at his own expense and risks his life to save lives on 9/11?

He was freaking there on the day of 9/11 and saw the buildings come down right in front of him.
What the hell would you call him then? He WAS in fact a 1st responder on 9/11.

And McPadden served in the Air Force as a trained medic, so he certainly knows what an explosion sounds like. You know, the explosions that just 'happened to' go off a moment after the COUNTDOWN reached ZERO and immediately preceded the collapse of Building 7.

But in IHOPer universe, just another one of those astounding coincidences I guess.
Move along, nothing to see. lol

"Truther Logic"


Medics are experts in explosions.

so they would know what an explosion sounds like. Buy yourself a clue.

In basic training, live explosives are detonated around the recruits in order to simulate combat conditions, so the medics can get used to working under heavy fire without panicking from fear.

can you get any more ridiculous? Simple question...no one is denying there were explosions...the problem you seem to have is you don't realize that explosion doesn't necessarily equal bomb.

it mostly certainly is a bomb.

again, please buy yourself a clue.

this "countdown"? Why did McPadden's initial story change?

got a link??

come on.. can we stop with semantics? Rumble and explosion are pretty congruent. Even if you want to get technical, these are not "technical" witnesses. If their story changes drastically that is a problem, but when they chose a different synonym... that my friend is human...

"Main Entry: bang
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: explosive noise
Synonyms: blast, boom, burst, clang, clap, clash, crack, detonation, discharge, howl, peal, pop, report, roar, roll, rumble, salvo, shot, slam, smash, sound, thud, thump, thunder, wham"

McPadden's story gets more dramatic with each telling. For example, he claims Amy Goodman heard the "countdown". Why doesn't she corroborate his story?

Ah, the heavy stench of desperation is in the air.

when words have multiple meanings, the most nefarious meanings are automatically what someone meant.

Can you please point to where I called ANY first responder a "liar"?

to imply.

when someone says the building is about to blow up, that doesn't mean the speaker is saying that it is BEING blown up with explosives, dude. That's YOUR take on it.

The fact that you are using your take to claim that I am calling a first responder a liar is despicable and yet one more way in which you are marginalizing the "truth movement".

3, 2, 1...

McPadden claims Amy Goodman also heard the "countdown". Why doesn't she corroborate his account?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

you conflate someone failing to deny something as corroborating it.

no... she supports him in calling for a new investigation.

the problem with trying to reason with people like you is that they don't know when they've lost their legs in an argument.
you better get a kickstand, dude.

I can't watch the video. But, without even seeing it, I don't believe a failure to deny something is corroborating it. If you have some footage of her specifically corroborating McPadden's claim, then please produce it.

because youtube is "down for maintenance" allow me to provide a frame of reference for the disinterested reader: kevin barrett confronts ms. goodman at a lecture in madison, wi. and he EXPLICITLY mentions the countdown, which he also claims MANY police officers corroborated when he spoke with them while visiting NYC in 2007, on the 6th anniversary of the attacks.

so not only does amy goodman NOT dismiss mr. barrett's claims -- including the countdown -- but she in fact SUPPORTS him in calling for a new investigation.

if it weren't true then why didn't she correct him?
if it weren't true then why would she agree that there are still unanswered questions regarding semptember 11?

it is a generic call for investigation of all the events of 9/11, not specifically Barrett's claims, so it's a little silly to try to make it seem that Goodman is specifically supporting Barrett. More importantly, Barrett makes a number of claims in his rambling presentation, so just because Goodman doesn't specifically deny each and every goofy claim Barrett makes, hardly means she is corroborating them.

BTW, if, as Barrett claims, "MANY" police officers corroborate the countdown, why doesn't he name them? More importantly, do you honestly believe that if Barrett's claim were true, these same officers would not come forward publicly with this earth-shaking information?

Your absolute dumbest claim/question is this one:



Please think about why that's a stupid question, dude.

the video for themselves and see if what this poster describes seems remotely like what they actually see. Goodman is trying to be polite to Barrett who, by the way, had written to Goodman previously, claiming she should hang for her part in covering up 9/11. Fucking unbelievable.

Barrett is a nutcase and anyone who takes anything he says as gospel should reconsider.

but thanks for attacking him, as predicted, just the same.

dude.


Simple question. Are you a "no-planer"?

she would have denied right then and there if it wasn't true.

jesus.

you have some facts, dude.

can you please point to any part of the video where she corroborates McPadden's claim?

BTW, I recall that Kevin Barrett actually accused Goodman of beiong part of the cover-up and saying that she would one day hang for it. That doesn't sound to me like Barrett feels that Goodman corroborates McPadden's claim. Again, if you have specific corroboration of McPadden's claim, please produce it.




http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/search?q=mcpadden

deleted

if I were in the same restaurant with you and you made a bizarre accusation like that, I'd have security escort you out.

BTW, notice in the video that Barrett does not mention that McPadden specifically accuses Goodman of hearing the countdown, so it's silly to assume that Goodman has to specifically address or deny it.

BTW, I think I can save both you and I a lot of time and aggravation, but I have to ask you a question first. Are you a "no-planer"?

am i a what?
are you fucking serious...?

It's a simple question. Are you a "no-planer"?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"no-planer", dude? Wouldn't that have been easier?

Now, another simple question. Why don't those of you who are "truthers" but, nonetheless, believe planes were used in the attacks call those "truthers" who are "no=planers" on their bullshit?

"Amy, you will one day find yourself on the scaffold...."

I tend to distrust people with fantasies of dispensing infinite justice.

I personally know of many people who went to ground zero of their "own accord," even from 3 hours away at the time. Who are you and I to negate his testimony simply because he was there so quickly? I am by no means saying his testimony is accurate, but even if you believe the official story, there were many who were not "dispatched" to the event who showed up in less than 3 hours to assist. Does the fact they were "sent there" mean they have integrity in and of itself? I highly doubt even you think that since many that negate the official theory were also dispatched...

some "truthers" are referring to him as a "first responder" in an effort, purposely or not, to bestow more credibility upon him. Butbhe wasn't a first responder, however admirablebhis actions may have been. Just setting the record straight.

of the demolition crew, so they have time to get out of the way when the building was brought down.
They didn't care what happened to anybody else. They also knew the media would never dare say anything about the countdown or ever question them about it, and they were right because we never heard about it again.

the reason we never heard anything about the countdown (even though we actually did) is not because it didn't happen, it's because the media would never "dare say anything about it".

Stupid post...again.

if the MSM didn't report it, it never happened.

Stupid post...again.

Fixed.

First of all, explosives required to take down a building in a synchronized fashion take days if not weeks to plan, place and execute. So, no demolition team was at ground zero. Hence, there was no demo crew to "get out of the way"...

Building 7 was supposed to go down at about the same time the towers came down, but there were technical problems and the technicians were called out to correct it. The collapse was supposed to be hidden under the massive dust clouds of the towers so they can claim the towers fell on it. Some of the demo techs may have been disguised as Red Cross workers.

Do you have any pictures of this crew? Do any of the firemen on the scene mention them at all? Can anyone corroborate any of your goofy claims?

Just so you know, I believe that you, Spooked and whatchamacallit are in a dead heat in the "who can marginalize the 'truth movement' the most" contest. Fucking unbelievable.

didn't mean to get you bent out of shape.

goofy claims, dude.

ask yourself why a Red Cross worker would be sounding out a counting down!?
don't sound like no Red Cross worker to me.

it undermines McPadden's story?

the countdown with the foreknowledge among many is further proof of controlled demolition.

McPadden claims Amy Goodman heard the "countdown", yet she does not corroborate his story.

because McPadden is making it all up for no apparent reason, just like all the other first responders with whom he is in cahoots who are all lying too, for no apparent reason. Which is what you are strongly suggesting. They are all just in cahoots with each other in a big anti-government conspiracy probably working in unison with al Qaeda and the terrorists to bring down the Bush government. Uh yeah, that's it.

how many first responders do you think DON'T allege what McPadden (who wasn't, btw, a "first responder", despite your attempts to paint him as such) alleges? Hundreds? Could you please indicate what other first responders you're referring to? Do any of them corroborate the claim of a "countdown"? Hint: no. Why is that, dude?

Police officer on 9/11: 'stand back...the building is about to blow up.'

The building is about to BLOW UP. A few moments later, massive
explosions are heard and the building comes down.

What part of that do you not understand?

WTF are you babbling about now? Again. why doesn't the cop state that the building is about to be blown up? Why has this cop not come forward afterward and said, "hey, WTC7 was brought down by explosives"? Your attempts at quote mining are laughable.

from the emergency workers, police and firefighters on the scene.

They were not allowed to speak.

I don't recall hearing that the 9/11 commission wouldn't hear them, but I do recall hearing that NYFD gagged the firefighters. I would have to try to find the information again, if needed. However, heading out the door in 5 minutes, so it will have to wait til later if you want me to find the link.

Regardless, Rollingrock does have one point in this argument. Even if the countdown did happen, we aren't likely to hear it corroborated for that reason alone.

if there was, in fact, a "countdown", it would be damning evidence. It strains credulity to believe that numerous police are aware of it, but would not come forward. With all due respect, the various "9/11 was an inside job" claims/theories would require an unbelievably large number of people to shut up about what they knew or saw.

or the many journalists who reported explosions? were they gagged too?
I don't recall hearing any testimony from any of the first-hand witnesses at all at the 9.11 hearings.
Can anybody explain that?? What a joke.

RR.

I'm glad to see you agree.

it's pretty stupid to claim that the five Democratic members of the Commission (appointed by the Democratic leadership of the House and Senate) would willingly participate in a cover-up.

you can't tell most of them apart from the republicans these days.

I'd bet you don't even know who they were and, beyond that, do you really believe if they were "DINO's", they would willingly help cover up a plot that resulted in the deaths of 3,000 Americans?

he was a member of the 9/11 commission who resigned in disgust because he wanted no part in the whitewash he said was taking place before his eyes.

“The White House Has Played Cover-Up”
–Former 9/11 Commission Member Max Cleland


“As each day goes by, we learn that this government knew a whole lot more about these terrorists before Sept. 11 than it has ever admitted.”

"In November, after the White House set conditions for the examination of documents Cleland said, “If this decision stands, I, as a member of the commission, cannot look any American in the eye, especially family members of victims, and say the commission had full access. This investigation is now compromised.”




www.democracynow.org/2004/3/23/the_white_house_has_played_cover
---------

Well, at least there was one democrat on the panel with some integrity, too bad he had absolutely no say because the commission members were only there to serve as window dressing. The only person who had any real power in this fiasco was the executive director, Philip Zelikow, the long-time Bush crony who was appointed to the commission by Bush himself.

'...The 9-11 Family Steering Committee and 9-11 Citizens Watch, have called for the resignation of the director of the independent 9-11 commission, Philip Zelikow.'

why you keep trying to rebunk it is beyond comprehension.

It's absolutely silly to claim that the executive director had more power than either the Chairman or the Vice-Chairman of the Commission. For you to maintain otherwise merely demonstrates your abject ignorance of how congressional commissions operate.

More importantly, I have repeatedly pointed out that Zelikow was not chosen by Bush but, instead, was chosen by Kean and Hamilton. I don't know why I have to keep pointing this out to you. One would think your embarrassment in this issue would eventually cause you to drop this silly line of "reasoning".

I will post the relevant sections of the law authorizing the Commission. Please pay attention this time. Make sure you actually read it. There'll be a quiz later, dude.



http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/about/107-306.htm

Why you continue to misinform in this matter is beyond me.

so that means Hamilton's first choice to head the commission was....HENRY KISSINGER??

And when the public outcry against that mass murderer was too great, his 2nd choice was....A BUSH CRONY?

Why on earth would a supposed 'Democrat' pick a Bush crony to investigate...the Bush regime?? Unless he's a DINO who is every bit as corrupt as Bush? Because he couldn't get HENRY KISSINGER to do it?? What is the rationale for these horrific choices, if any?? Like I said, you can't tell hardly tell the difference between a democrat and a republican anymore. Lee Hamilton is living proof of that.

maybe it will sink in.


Neither Kean nor Hamilton had anything at all to do with Kissinger's selection because:


KISSINGER WAS BUSH'S FIRST CHOICE AS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMISSION. Duh.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_kissinger



How in the world you keep getting the chairmanship of the Commission mixed up with the executive directorship of the staff is fucking unbelievable. Your lack of precision about factual matters is so pronounced, I almost know without looking, that you've managed to get whatever you happen to be yammering about at the moment dead wrong.

Kissinger declined Bush's appointment because the Commission rules would have required him to divulge the names of the clients of his consulting firm to make sure that he had no conflicts of interest. Bush's next choice (and his ONLY choice any of the members or staff of the commission) was Kean. Hamilton was appointed by the Democratic minority leader of the Senate:



http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/about/107-306.htm

I don't know how many times this makes that I have explained this to you. Why I have to keep explaining this to you apparently is unknowable.

That's the magic of Pretzel logic!



first you show a document that claims the DIRECTOR IS SELECTED BY THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR.

...but in the next post you say NO, never mind, the DIRECTOR is really selected by BUSH!!
so which is it??

and if Bush selected Kissinger, then why couldn't he have selected ZELIKOW as well??


and note that the document says, the DIRECTOR is selected in CONSULTATION with the chair and vice-chair, which means the choice has to be agreed upon by all parties involved in the selection process, which means HAMILTON did NOT object to the choice of Kissinger so it was HIS choice as well, according to what it says right there in YOUR document.

I excerpt the law for you, provide links to relevant news articles and you still manage to get this backwards.


Please show me where I EVER stated that the executive director was chosen by anyone other than the chair and vice-chair of the commission.


Try to follow here:

The Commission was established by CONGRESS, through PL 107-306. Bush did not have the power to pass legislation. That's a function of the LEGISLATIVE branch.

By the provisions of PL 107-306:

Bush was empowered to choose the CHAIRMAN of the commission, not the fucking executive director. Bush initially chose Kissenger to be the CHAIRMAN of the commision, NOT the executive director. Kissenger declined the selection when he learned a provision of PL 107-306 required that he would have to disclose the names of the clients of his consulting firm. When Kissenger declined his appointment, Bush subsequently chose Thomas Kean as CHAIRMAN of the commission. As provided for in PL 107-306, Lee Hamilton was chosen as VICE-CHAIRMAN of the commission by the Democratic Minority Leader of the US Senate.


Also by the provisions of PL 107-306, Kean IN CONSULTATION WITH HAMILTON chose Zelikow as executive director. Not Bush. Not Kissenger. Kean and Hamilton.



How you can read the above and somehow claim that Bush selected Zelikow is beyond me. How you cannot grasp the rather obvious difference between CHAIRMAN and EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR also amazes me. Do I need to draw you a fucking organizational chart?

Which brings me to my final point. I used to think these extended "debates" with you were occasioned mostly by your poor critical thinking skills. However, I have come to realize that an equally important factor is your abject reading comprehension skills. I am not wasting any more time trying to explain this to someone at such an obvious disadvantage.

I give up on trying to decipher your tortured pretzel code logic.

It's giving me a migraine.

your inability to understand plain English is your own problem.

I am beginning to seriously believe that you just don't know how to read. I have told you repeatedly that the public law setting up the Commission provided that Bush could choose the CHAIRMAN...that is part of the COMMISSION, not part of the staff. he initially chose KISSINGER as the CHAIRMAN, not the (executive)director. After Kissinger resigned as CHAIRMAN, Bush appointed Thomas Kean and the Democratic leadership of the SENATE chose Lee Hamilton to be the vice-chairman. Then KEAN, in consultation with HAMILTON chose ZELIKOW to be the EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, which is a STAFF position, not a member of the COMMISSION. Got it now?


Bush did NOT choose Zelikow. Kissinger was NOT the executive director of the commission, he was the CHAIRMAN until he RESIGNED. Kean was the CHAIRMAN. Zelikow was the executive director. He was NOT the CHAIRMAN. Is this sinking in now?

The really ironic thing here is you have to totally mangle what I have said several times now to try to call me a liar in violation of DU rules. Do you get the juxtaposition there?

simply because a 'democrat' had a hand in the decision? LMAO.

I could give a shit if the selection was made by a democrat or a republican, because both parties are equally corrupt. You can play semantic games until you turn blue in the face. The fact remains, Zelikow was a Bush crony who should not have been anywhere near the 'investigation,' unless the purpose of it was to white wash the investigation and cover up the crime.

Or do you actually think it was a good idea to have a long-time Bush crony like Philip Zelikow, the author of Bush's pre-emptive war strategy in Iraq, lead the official investigation of 9/11? Seriously?

If Hamilton did have a hand in picking Zelikow to lead the 9/11 investigation, do you think he made a good choice?? Dude, you are seriously deluded if you think that.

your strawman arguments are outrageous. Please show me where I ever approved of them choosing Zelikow. I was simply trying to correct your mangled understanding of the difference between the chairman of the commission and executive director and who makes what selections/appointments. You didn't ask me about the quality of the choice, dude.

More importantly, it's becoming clearer and clearer that you totally misrepresent what people have said as a way of starting some real brouhahas and it's hard to believe that this results solely from misunderstandings on your part. You really ought to knock it off.

that's a rather stunning admission.

I'll have to get back to you on that one.

but I would have chosen someone else.

fabricating false reasons to go to war is an evil thing to do?

how about the electronic voting that fraudulently handed Bush a 2nd term, which Zelikow was also responsible for when he wrote Bush's HAVA? you think that's a good thing too?

dude.

was a conspiracy theory website. which is kinda funny, because I have seen you link to it on more than one occasion.






It also states on his official bio page that he served as Executive Director on Bush's National Election Reform Committee.




If you have any sources of information that provess otherwise, go ahead and cough it up.
Don't be shy. Otherwise, you seem to be completely clueless and/or willfully ignorant of the facts.

you start with some fact, then go wildly offtrack. Can you show us where the National Commission on Federal Election Reform was controlled by Bush?

as the chief executive, he gets to appoint the people to run his committees, agencies, departments of government, etc. In case you didn't know, that's how it works when you're the President.

For example that's how Bush cronies such as Michael Heckuva Job Brownie, Michael Chertoff, and so on, get appointed to these important positions, you know, by the President. He gets to choose. Who else do you think makes the appointments? The Easter Bunny? lol. But if you have any information to show to the contrary, like I said please feel free to cough up some links. Though it appears, that you do not.

neither a Presidential nor a congressional commission, dude, which you would know if you had the slightest idea what the fuck you're talking about.



See that, dude? Bush had absolutely nothing to do with it. Why don't you fact-check your goofy claims before embarrassing yourself? The funniest thing is you're always accusing me of being incorrect about sometbing, then I'm forced to show that you're dead wrong. In the meantime, you've acquired a new target to be wrong about and we repeat the cycle.

I have honestly never seen anyone as poorly informed as you. I resign as your tutor, dude. You appear to be unteachable.

why is that? and the University of Virginia may have formed the Election reform committee, but the person in charge of actually running it was chosen by the Bush administration. For example, Michael Brown did not form the FEMA agency, but he was chosen by the Bush administration to run it. Comprende?


Edit: oops, never mind. See the post directly below!

Guest what?




In other words, the National Election Reform Committee was put together and created by, you guessed it... ZELIKOW HIMSELF!
Holy shit! The cronyism on this COVER UP COMMISSION is worse and far more blatant than I could have imagined!

First I should ask, are you retracting your totally unsupported and facially silly claim that Bush chose Zelikow to be executive director of the commission?

Second, as SDuderstadt already pointed out, the Carter-Ford commission was co-organized by the Miller Center, which leans right, and the Century Foundation, which leans left. You've presented no evidence that it was "put together and created by... ZELIKOW HIMSELF." (You've also presented no evidence that you have any idea what the Carter-Ford commission recommended.)

For just about five years now I've watched people try to demonstrate that "electronic voting... fraudulently handed Bush a 2nd term," and it's been one wipe-out after another. By all means, step right up.

Anyone who has read the Ford-Carter report on the one hand, and HAVA on the other, knows that they have considerable differences. It's silly to say that because Zelikow directed the Ford-Carter commission, he therefore wrote HAVA. But, hey, whatever.

Are you hypothesizing? Or are you stating this as fact? The way it is written, one would think you have some inside scoop, that no one else is privy to. Please explain further.

For you SDuderstadt.. cause you challenge me and make me show you why I believe what I believe... but this statement "Here's an interesting question, dude. If your claim was true, wouldn't you expect the policeman to say, "the building is about to be blown up" instead of "the building is about to blow up"? It's posts like these that continue to contribute to the self-marginalization of the "truth movement"." is the most biased statement I have ever seen you write.

Let's be logical as you tend to be:

1. The police officer was told it was going to be "brought down" and he interpreted and filtered it as "the building is about to blow up"
2. The police officer was told the building was weakened with fires and could collapse at any moment and he interpreted and filtered it as "the building is about to blow up"
3. The police officer was told the building has had secondary explosions and is about to collapse and he interpreted and filtered it as "the building is about to blow up"

Which one sounds more feasible? I think they all do. So, in this case, I don't think any of us can make a sound judgement based upon the words alone considering the stress/situation he was facing at the time. However, I have seen the video several times and the sound does make you wonder...

What video are you watching?

dishonestly altered the soundtrack to "add" sounds of explosions, right?

But in this particular video, the people in the video clearly react to the sound and their reaction is quite dramatic.

are you saying the explosions are somehow connected to the collapse of the towers? I don't of anyone who denies there were multiple explosions on that day. However, there are many thing commonly found in office buildings capable of exploding under the right conditions and explosions do not necessarily equal use of explosives.

The ticker tape reads,

'Poll: half of US blames Bush admin for 9/11.'



Yeah, the undeluded half.

I blame the Bush administration for not taking more decisive action to prevent 9/11. That doesn't mean that 9/11 was an inside job, dude. That's also not precisely what the ticker says, is it...

it doesn't say they blame him for not taking enough decisive action.

yeah, it's called reading comprehension. why don't you get some. lol.

I despised the Bush administration, but do you honestly read "blame the Bush administration for 9/11" as meaning they think it was an inside job? If you do, could you please explain how his approval rating skyrocketed to 92% shortly after 9/11? Take some reading comprehension classes yourself, dude.

You are absolutely correct SDuderstadt with regards to the fact that that poll did not necessarily mean that 50% think it was an inside job. It was likely a sum of those who believe, MIHOP, LIHOP, and those who believe the government was inept.

However, his approval rating skyrocketing immediately afterwords really doesn't say anything about his performance before, during and immediately after 9/11. Everyone was so scared and were comforted his "go get 'em" attitude which quickly wore off.

See the historical approval rating chart here: http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm

By that time, Bush's poll numbers dropped to the low 40s.

Do try to keep up.

since you provided no link to the actual poll and, since the CNN footage appears to be from 9/11/01 how would anyone be supposed to know when the poll was taken, other than it would've had to be taken on 9/11 or after?

If the footage is being broadcast on 9/11, how could it possibly cite a poll from 5 years in the future? There is no clue as to what date the footage is being broadcast. The funny thing is you continue to post with no clarity, then lambaste people for not understanding your incoherence.

you would have asked when the poll was taken, but you didn't because you are not.

you prefer to make dishonest ass-umptions about things that always ends up with you putting your foot in your mouth.

your writing is so poor and you are so inarticulate, I have no idea wtf you're talking about much of the time.

I guess I am missing something, because I really do not see how the date of the poll matters. At least I am well aware a lot of people blame the bush admin for 9/11 for a combination of various reasons, ineptness, ignorance, Lihop, Mihop, etc..

SD argues the results of the CNN poll conflicts with Bush's high approval ratings,
so he assumes the poll was taken very shortly after 9/11 when Bush approval ratings
were at there peak (it was something like 90% approval I think). but it wasn't taken at that time, it was taken in 2006 when Bush's approval ratings for far lower. so there's no inconsistency between the CNN poll and his approval rating. make sense? It's a very simple point, I don't see how you could miss it.

He did not contradict the date of the poll. He merely said that his approval rating shot up right after 9/11. I don't see where he denied the poll existed, was accurate, or occurred at a later date.

are you saying SD has a valid argument here?

because he certainly does not.

read through the thread again and see if you can spot your error, dude.

136 posts? Never seen this Neily guy before. He could be your 'ally' or buddy for all I know.

YOUR error, and your buddy's, was in assuming that the CNN poll is at odds with Bush's approval ratings.
Which it clearly is not, because it was taken at at time when his approval ratings were in the toilet.

Jesus Christ. Get a clue.

Figure this out. You offer footagage from 9/11 but don't provide any clue as to when CNN is airing it. That's why I asked about the date, because it simply doesn't make sense that a poll being cited on a ticker on video in which someone is speaking contemporaneously about the events of that day would not make sense because a) no one one would be taking a poll about who's to blame in the middle of it and, (b)if they were, it would be hard to reconcile 50 whatever percent blaming Bush for the attacks, then turning around and according him a 92% approval rating.

I know that you struggle with nuance but, again, your unbelievable imprecision sets off another round of confusion.

Secondly, I dont side with people based upon their beliefs, but rather their actions.

Nowhere did he say the poll was false. He simply tried to contest the "cause" of the drop in his approval ratings.

I think it is apparent that he agrees Bush's approval rating was all over the board. However, he was accurate in stating his ratings spiked immediately after 9/11.

the label RR assigned to the CNN clip is "original footage", which means it would have been shot on 9/11. It also implies (though does not plainly identify) that the clip aired on 9/11. If it aired at some other time, RR should have made that clear and, in fact, I think I have asked several times for him to clear it up.

If, as implied, both the footage and the air date are 9/11/01, then one would be justified in questioning the poll results because a) I believe everyone would have been in shock on 9/11 and I don't think anyone would have taken any sort of poll as to who was to blame for 9/11. b) if (as unlikely as it would have been) it WAS taken on 9/11, it simply doesn't make sense that 50% would think Bush was to blame for 9/11, then turn around and give him a 92% approval rating. Those two things don't remotely go with each other.

In the final analysis, this is what happens when inarticulate posters with poor writing styles refuse to clarify their point as questions are asked. If the footage was from 2001, but was being broadcast in 2006, he could have saved everyone a lot of time by simply making that clear. I, for one, don't think it's that much to ask.

Sorry.. thats why I ignore half of them.

Learn to read

get yourself a copy of hooked on phonics, asap.

comprehension, dude. I don't doubt you can read. I don't think you can accurately process what you read.

You post a video with an interesting clue, and all you get is a collection of the most dumb-as-shit responses I've ever seen.

I just like to stand back and watch our resident IHOPers twist and spin themselves into a pretzel.
It's kinda funny in a way.

quit posting dumb-as-shit-responses, then.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You really think this is rock-hard empirical evidence of controlled demolition? Really?

Which story of McPadden are you using in this video? The guy's details keep changing. And the Red Cross was in on it? Really?

So many clairvoyants that day...

which building WTC 7 was?

I have to say your theory cannot be explained away on this one...

Your post conflicts itself.

"This report was most probably caused by the misinterpretation of the reports saying WTC 7 was in immediate danger of collapsing and personnel in the area had to be pulled away."

"We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening. In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had."

Those are two completely opposite statements.

at all.

First, they say it was a misinterpretation of reports, but then below they say the didn't receive press releases in advance.




Then, there is conflict with saying there were reports the building is in immediate danger of collapse, and then saying they weren't told in advance the buildings were going to fall. "Immediate danger of collapse" and saying the "building was going to fall" are pretty much one in the same.

statements accurately. I think it's pretty clear that the BBC was merely mistaken in their attempts to beat other media to the punch. If I recall correctly, the BBC reporter who made the announcement also stated clearly that details were sketchy. I think this is much ado about basically nothing.

If a truther tried to get away with that weak argument on you,you would throw a hissy fit of invective.
Nelly pointed out quite well the contradiction in the BBC expanation.
Don't you ever get tired of trying to come up with rationalizations for all the obvious holes in the official story?

Hint: no

the first statement is from the author of the website. The second statement is from the BBC itself. As I stated earlier, words often have multiple meanings. "Reports" does not necessarily mean "written report". So, the author's first use of the word "report" seems to refer to the BBC news story itself, while the second mention probably refers to oral reports or I am certain that the BBC was monitoring whatever first responder channels it could.

My biggest problem with this whole issue is I can only imagine the sheer chaos that was going on that day. Why anyone would expect that numerous entities did not make misstatements is beyond me.

So if they weren't told anything in advance about building 7, where then did they get the information that led to the report of WTC7 collapse 20 minutes before it happened? The video of the BBC reporter reporting WTC7's collapse and the BBC statement alone contradict one another. They had to have heard something from somewhere, but have they identified their source?

with all due respect, think this through. With the collapse of numerous buildings that day, why is it surprising that the BBC got things wrong that day? If Jane Standley is reporting that WTC 7 has collapsed while it's obviously standing behind her, why is that automatically nefarious? Even clear-cut murder cases usually have some anomaly surrounding them. Large-scale, catastrophic events are even more so. Does anyone really believe the BBC was in on some plot?

story. It gets funny watching the contortions you will go thru to justify them while calling others illogical.

that report came around the same time of the two towers collapsing. At that point in time, I could buy the confusion argument considering several other buildings were crushed when the tower collapsed. 7 hours later there wasn't much confusion as to which buildings had collapsed and which hadn't.

Had they reported there were several other buildings severely damaged and on the verge of collapse and then building 7 was the only one that did, that might be believable. But, to sit there and see BBC say WTC 7 has collapsed, they had to have gotten that information from somewhere. Now, put that information with the ground footage showing everyone pulling back from 7 saying it was going to collapse and Silverstein saying they had to pull it (assuming the innocent reason - resouces), which means someone somewhere was telling someone it was going to collapse. I just want to know who that was. Was it the Fire officials who made that determination? Or, were the fire officials told by someone else?

Asking these questions does not imply a nefarious motive by BBC. Just tell us where you got the information from, since it was obviously accurate and don't blame it on confusion because it wasn't really an error, but rather foresight.

let us know when you get to the bottom of this.

cnn said it would come down
cbs said it would come down and left a camera on it until it did
nist said it was a mystery why it came down
a mystery means that it could not be predicted
nist said that the collapse was unexpected
people like dan rather are recorded anticipating the collapse
nist declared that the cause of collapse was unknown in 2005
people like aaron brown are recorded anticipating the collapse in 2001
if a cause was yet unknown in 2005, it cannot have been predicted in 2001
there are two things that cannot both be true
an event was correctly predicted and the cause was unknown
if an event is correctly predicted then the cause is known
if the cause of an event is yet unkown, it cannot have been predicted
correct predictions of the collapse are recorded
it does not matter that every recorded prediction is second hand information, because they were correct
the cause could not be unknown
nist began an examination with a falsehood

"if an event is correctly predicted then the cause is known"

No. Often we can predict things that we can't causally account for, especially when the predictions are short-run and qualitative.

In this case, the building was measurably failing, so it didn't take a comprehensive structural analysis to predict the possibility of a structural collapse.

It was measurably failing? I really would like to see the photos depicting such failure. And, I am not being sarcastic. If anyone could point to a comprehensive photo analysis or collection that would be great.

The one thing I will fault those who believe inside job is they generally don't include many photos showing fire on the side facing the towers, if at all.

that someone measured the failing
a demolition expert said that his man measured something and predicted collapse
nist said the collapse was unexpected and unexplained prior to nist's investigation
a photo showing failure at 5:00 would have been helpful and referential for nist
but not as helpful as explanations from authorities and experts who said they measured failure and predicted the outcome

if a plane flew into bad weather and our friends on the television told us it was going to crash
and it crashed within 100 miles (15 minutes) of tv predictions, where rescue and recovery had already been sent
and afterward the faa said the crash was mysterious and unexpected and could only be explained after investigation,
then only an authoritarian could believe the faa, because
if an unusual event is correctly predicted, then the cause of the event is known
a non recurring event cannot be predicted if the cause is unknown
and because an innocent party will credit another innocent party for making a right prediction
and ask the predictors how they knew

"Isn't the whole point of 'research' to figure out the truth? In the search for truth, isn't it important to start with facts that are factual?" --Skinner, 11/13/06

you nailed it.

They were mystified and baffled as to how to how to sell their fire collapse drivel without looking like complete idiots. They were working backwards from a pre-conceived conclusion using the most tortured pretzel logic and the laws of Bushonian science. The Nist report is pure junk science straight from the bowels of the most anti-science administration in history. I wonder who came up with it, Michael Brownie? Or maybe the same guy who wrote the Bush report on global warming? Not surprisingly. I'm thinking it must have been L. Ron Hubbard. Heckuva job!?

but i have no insight into the personal drama at nist

This is why Daniel Nigro made the call, expecting that the building would likely collapse.

http://911guide.googlepages.com/danielnigro

It's simply not true that the building wasn't expected to collapse.



This is not true. Having an awareness of a strong possibility isn't the same as knowing exactly why something happens.

Please stop fooling yourself.

Is the claim of the video that the NYPD and the Red Cross knew of a controlled Demolition, and are therefore complicit in the murder of the people in the towers?

You show a cop you claim is the smoking gun, and a Red Cross radio with a countdown. Please explain.

welcome to the "debate" with the "9/11 was an inside job crowd".

They are talking about,

Are you implying that only WTC7 was a CD, and not 1 & 2?

Why would there be a countdown for CD on a Red Cross radio? The premise makes no sense.

Your premise that the police where in on it with the towers was based on this video with the overheard countdown for 7.
So your little idea that the police were knowing murderers is wrong seeing as 7 was evacuated.
But nice try anyway at smearing Truthers again. You guys must be getting even more desperate to try that crap.