For people who think WTC 7 was a controlled demolion: Do you think this man is lying?

[Bolo Boffin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HLDgjYuRHk

The clip is taken from a documentary called America 9/11. A firefighter points out WTC 7 and tells the cameraman that it is going to fall down. The building is leaning, he says. The building has lost its structural integrity. They can't put out the fire and the building "is definitely coming down."

Controlled demolition advocates: do you think this man is lying? He is on the scene. He's seen the building. Shouldn't he know better than you or I about the condition of that building?

[whatchamacallit]

1. Maybe

Who knows?

[BeachBaby]

2. I dunno, bolo....

I watched the link you provided. The angle of the camera makes it really difficult to get an idea of where the fireman is standing.

It's quite possible that I'm wrong here, but that building didn't look like WTC 7....furthermore, except for the title of the video, there is no mention of what building the fireman is referring to. I think it's safe to assume that he's talking about the building in the background, but like I said, I'm not convinced it's WTC 7. There were many buildings on fire that day.

There are so many stories, bolo....so many "eye-witness" accounts. There are many eye-witness claims that WTC 7 suffered several quick explosions before its collapse. I know I'm a newbie here, but I'm no newbie when it comes to the 9/11 thing. I've got legal pads filled with little notes I've jotted through the years, and if there is one thing I've learned in all of this, is that SOMEONE, or SEVERAL SOMEONES, are lying. All you gotta do is read all the contradictory statements to come to that conclusion.

One burning (no pun intended) fact, though.....when I think about who inhabited WTC 7, I find it near-to-impossible for me to accept the "official story".

[SDuderstadt]

6. Except that "explosions" come from many different sources...

and doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion it was controlled demolition. Other sources would include emergency and back-up fuel tanks, as well as generators.

It's also clear that the firefighter is talking about WTC 7, as were many other firefighters that day. See:

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html and http://www.debunking911.com/quotes.htm

I'm hoping you aren't suggesting that they were "in on it too". And you're right that there are many stories from that day, in which case one has to look to the preponderence of the evidence to establish cause. It's hard to look thusly and conclude that controlled demolition could remotely be the cause. The CT's do not help their cause by clipping quotes, misquoting witnesses or otherwise capitalizing on the mass confusion that day to create the impression that the first responders were part of it. That's shameful and the CT's should be embarrassed.

[BeachBaby]

8. Heck no, SD....

I wasn't suggesting any such thing, and I apologize if my last post gave you any indication of that.

As for the explosions heard coming from WTC 7, I agree with you. I wasn't saying that the explosions were, without question, a result of a CD in progress. My point was that, with all the thousands of accounts I've read, there were many who claim there were explosions, and others who say it's bullshit. Inconsistency. My mind leads to two possibilities on the explosions - transformers and CD. But that's just me. :)

BTW, SD, I posted to you in another 9/11 thread a little while ago. It may help you understand my position on this a little bit better.

[SDuderstadt]

10. Apology

I didn't mean to imply that you did. Forgive me for my imprecise phrasing.

The overall point I am trying to make is that in ANY large scale catastrophic event, there are likely to be inconsistencies and even outright contradictions. The key is how to look at and evaluate the evidence. The problem with CD, for example, is that there is really nothing other than circumtantial evidence that, when combined the physical evidence, is quickly shown to be mere supposition and speculation unsupported by the facts.

JFK was assassinated 44 years ago, yet wild-eyed conspiracy theories persist to this day and are recycled over and over despite being roundly debunked (I mean honestly, we're expected to believe that the Secret Service Agent driving JFK's limousine turned around in his seat and delivered the fatal shot to JFK with his handgun? Please.). Vincent Bugliosi wrote an excellent book on the JFK assassination that should lay most, if not all, of these absurd theories to rest once and for all. The problem for many people though, is it is too hard for them to come to grips that someone as powerful and beloved as JFK could be done in by a nobody like Oswald.

Similarly, at the end of the day, the evidence for 9/11 points to the "official story" being largely correct. However, that doesn't mean there aren't unanswered questions, nor does it mean more investigation is not warranted. But I believe we can reasonably put CD, LIHOP and MIHOP to bed and, at the same time, pursue questions of Bush administration gross negliegence leading up to 9/11 and their reprehensible assault on the constitution since.

[Fainter]

156. Got Any Evidence Of Exploding Transformers On 9/11? n/t

[jberryhill]

161. Yes

A number of people reported hearing explosions at various times, and which were not followed by a building collapse. So given the choice between (a) "hearing a loud bang" from something falling, (b) transformers, pressurized containers of various kinds (hydraulic systems, aerosol cans, etc.), and (c) demolitions work; then it would appear that the lack of a collapse incident to hearing these sounds would tend more toward (a) and (b) than (c).

There are things that occur which are the natural incidents of a fire. Stuff exploding is one of them. Another would be, for example, people succumbing to smoke inhalation.

Now, do you suppose anyone in the towers died from smoke inhalation? I sure believe that people did. There is, however, no "evidence" for this having happened, as the remains of victims recovered from the site were not amenable to that sort of analysis. I don't doubt, though, that people did die from smoke inhalation in a fire, nor do I doubt that people reported hearing explosions during a fire.

[Fainter]

204. That Is Not Evidence, That Is A Presumption...

if we had had a proper forensic investigation it would have been possible to buttress your presumption with hard physical evidence or, alternatively, to rule out the use of explosives. The beauty of that, of course, is that it would have put to rest many questions and doubts surrounding the collapses.

Your smoke inhalation analogy is inapt because the debris in the collapse piles was most certainly amenable to forensic analysis. Furthermore, a proper forensic analysis of the debris would have had probative value on the question of the collapse mechanism. Your smoke inhalation analogy bears no causal relationship with the collapse of the buildings. Witnesses reporting explosions does. Please take a moment to explain to all what Quintierre meant when he questioned NIST's methodology. Feel free to use his exact quote and please give us your interpretation.

[Bolo Boffin]

15. Yes, he's pointing to 7 World Trade

It's very washed out in the video, but you can see it in the background. The angle is from the northwest. Look at a clear picture of 7 around the top, and then watch it again.

[wildbilln864]

3. good find bolo.

No I have no reason to believe he's lying. Yes he should know better than us.
Still it doesn't rule out CD IMHO. Thanks. :hi:

[Bolo Boffin]

17. Then it was a rational conclusion that 7 WTC was going to collapse that day

There is no more of this "first time in history" stuff and no more of this "BBC announced it before it fell, how did they know" stuff.

People on the ground were aware of the structural weaknesses of that building. Based on what they could see with the naked eye, they were aware that the building was going to fall down.

No, this doesn't "rule out" CD. It only makes it wildly unlikely.

[wildbilln864]

72. That's what you think.

"There is no more of this "first time in history" stuff and no more of this "BBC announced it before it fell, how did they know" stuff."

Doesn't change anything. It still was the first time. And they did announce it early. :hi:

[Bolo Boffin]

74. And there is nothing sinister there.

It was the first time, but that says nothing.

The BBC announced it early, but that was a mistake.

People suspected that it would fall because of its condition.

[mrgerbik]

120. They suspected it would collapse?

Do you suppose they suspected where the gold went?

[Bolo Boffin]

124. I don't know, mrgerbik.

Why don't you trot down to your closest FDNY station and ask 'em?

[noise]

4. Total collapse

was not the only option. No firefighter could have known the manner of the collapse (full, partial, toppling).

[SDuderstadt]

5. Except, it shows that...

controlled demolition was NOT the only possible cause for the building coming down as many CT's claim. Combine this with the testimony of numerous others and it becomes even clearer. I would think someone who makes their living going into dangerous buildings is a much better judge of when the situation has reached a tipping point making the building too unsafe, don't you?

[noise]

7. Yes

But even a firefighter had no way of knowing the actual damage to the building. Dangerous? Yes. Possible collapse? Yes. Could any firefighter have known the end result would be a total collapse? No.

[SDuderstadt]

9. Well, but when FDNY puts a transit on the building...

and determines that the building is too unstable to warrant keeping a rescue team there, then subsequently withdraws personnel from the collapse zone and the building thereupon collapses, it's fair to conclude the building fell for reasons other than CD. If there is solid evidence of CD other than, "well, the building collapsed and it shouldn't have", please present it.

In the meantime, it makes far more sense that a building that was heavily damaged by the collapse of the North and South Towers and subsequently subjected to raging fire for 6 hours collapsed for those reasons, rather than from something there is zero evidence for.

[petgoat]

11. The claim was made that they put a transit on the SW corner

and saw a bulge between 12 and 13.

The problem is, according to this photo there was no SW corner
at 12 and 13.



The FDNY accounts of the damage are mutually contradictory. That's why
FEMA chose to ignore them and ascribe the collapse to fire damage.

[SDuderstadt]

12. Please provide some sort of evidence for your claim...

rather than just expect we'll believe what you say. What evidence do you have that the FDNY accounts are "mutually contradictory"? I don't recall the FDNY being tasked with trying to determine why WTC 7 collapsed, do you?

[petgoat]

13. It's Your Own Link, LOL! See post 6

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden: "Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13,
and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could
see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors."

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html

[SDuderstadt]

73. Ummm, PetGoat....

First of all, do you think "southwest corner" could only refer to the edge of the SW corner??? Please tell us what comprises the corner of a building. How far does the corner extend from that edge? Would it be fair ro say a building wall has two corners and a middle. If I am standing 5 feet from the corner of a 70 foot wall, would you argue that I am not at the corner? Your parsing here is absurd. More importantly, what do you think Hayden is referring to when he says, "and we had put a transit on THAT"? The corner or the bulge? My money's on the bulge. Isn't it reasonable to expect that the building just MIGHT bulge in proximity to where it was damaged? How is this in any way mutually contradictory"? Mutually contradictory with respect to what, exactly?

Are you claiming that hayden is knowingly referring to a non-existent part of the building? Is Hayden "in on it", too? See, this is why rational people find "truthers" like yourself simply not worth wasting time on. You scour all the testimony and data and seize upon anything that can be interpreted more than one way, choose the absolutely absurd interpretation, then claim that somehow proves one of your preposterous theories, while you challenge us "Octabots" to another rope-a-dope round of, "Oh, yeah?? Well, what about THIS?".

Simply put, you guys have had six years to assemble some sort of coherent, believable alternative hypothesis, but you've failed miserably. You know you're having a bad day when JFK conspiracy buffs sound more believable than you do.

[petgoat]

85. I've used a transit frequently in construction work.

You don't put the transit on the bulge. You sight
along a straight line on the building, preferably
at a corner. It would be absurd to climb to the bulge
to try to see it--dangerous and pointless.

Mutually contradictory with respect to what, exactly?

Mutually contradictory with respect to the damage. Chief Hayden
says it's a bulge, Captain Boyle says it's a 20-story gash,
Chief Fellini says it was between floors three and six.

http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html

Is Hayden "in on it", too?

One time I was put in a position where I didn't feel I could tell
the truth about a matter involving my job. So I'd say what I was
supposed to say, and put on a big toothy grimace when I did it.

My best guess is that these guys are telling tall tales because
they're doing what they've been told, but by making the tales
contradictory they're deliberately sabotaging the value of their
own testimony.

That janitor hero feller does much the same thing: tells the story
of the basement bombs but lards it with a bunch of unbelieveable
crap so nobody with a responsible bone in his body will believe
him.

A second option is that they were so stressed by the disaster that
they had helicopters between their ears and didn't even know what
they were looking at half the time. I wouldn't blame them one bit
if that was the case.

[wildbilln864]

90. I would also expect...

they'd mention thegouged out part in that photo if they'd checked the SW corner surely they'd have seen that! :shrug:

[jberryhill]

18. So?

What was the time that picture was taken, and what was the time the "bulge" was seen?

Absent some relative time, these accounts are not inherently contradictory - not if the integrity of the building was deteriorating through the course of the day.

[Bolo Boffin]

22. Petgoat, you have avoided the question. Do you think he's lying?

As long as there was a 12th and 13th floor, it was available to put a transit on.

They didn't say "on the southwest corner of 12 and 13". They said the bulge was between 12 and 13.

Petgoat, do you think that man is lying?

[petgoat]

27. Why do you always demand the rush to judgment?

I think Chief Hayden's report is inconsistent with other
officials' reports of the damage, I think the lack of
reports from FDNY grunts is noteworthy, I don't see how
you can put a transit on a corner that doesn't exist,
and so without explanation of these questions I don't
find the report credible.

Apparently neither did FEMA. Their June 2002 report
ignored Chief Hayden's April 2002 remarks.

[Bolo Boffin]

29. I demand a preliminary judgment.

I want you to say plainly that you think this man is lying, and why.

You think Hayden's account is inconsistent. I just showed you that it isn't. You think the lack of reports from FDNY "grunts" (your word) is noteworthy. Why doesn't that guy fit your description of a FDNY "grunt"? They didn't say they put it on the corner, petgoat. They put it on the floor. The floor goes all the way around the building.

You understand that "putting it on the building" means aiming the telescopic lens at the building, right? There is no physical attachment.

[petgoat]

32. You got it. The report lacks credibility.

They said they put it on the corner.

"<W>e saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13,
and we had put a transit on that...."

I know what a transit it, bolo. I've used them in construction
work. Obviously you'd sight up the corner of the building. There's
no reason to climb to the 12th floor of a bulging building to look
at the bulge.

[Bolo Boffin]

38. Petgoat, you're being much too literal

The picture on the left, your picture, is from the NIST report. The picture on the right was taken at 2:00. Therefore the picture on the left was taken after. Before 2, the corner was there and available to have a transit put on it.

[Laurier]

96. Oi vey.

Edited because I see that others have already taken you to task on this and I hadn't read the rest of the posts before I posted.

But come on, goat, you're really out to lunch on this one. A transit can be trained upon any spot, and you seem to be trying to make it sound as though a physical device has to be attached to a particular spot in order to "put a transit on it" when that is most certainly not the case.

[petgoat]

97. Yes I know what a transit is. I've used them in grading, in building foundations, and in brick and

block work. And I know you can set one up to shoot
vertically just as well as horizontally.

[petgoat]

99. You're misreading the record. It's others who say the surveyors must climb to the bulge.

I say you shoot up the side of the building from the sidewalk.
I know what a transit is. There's not much to it.

[Laurier]

101. No, I'm not.

I'm simply saying that "putting a transit" on something is easy peasy and it doesn't mean what you want others to believe it to mean.

*Edited last word.

[freedom fighter jh]

193. How in the world do you conclude that because FDNY indicated that

they thought the building might collapse, "it's fair to conclude the building fell for reasons other than CD"?

2 other possibilities:
1. FDNY was told that the building might collapse by someone who knew the plan;
2. There really was enough damage to the building to cause it to collapse, but still it was demolished in a controlled way.

Whatever you may say about foreknowledge, the manner of collapse is inconsistent with the idea that building seven was collapsed by fallout from the towers.

[Grateful for Hope]

194. kick n/t

[SDuderstadt]

197. You keep leaving out salient elements...

this time you're leaving out the fact that WTC 7 suffered extensive fires that went unfought for 6-7 hours in addition to suffering extensive structural damage from the collapse of WTC's 1 & 2. Are you dioing this on purpose?

[Bolo Boffin]

19. He didn't describe the manner of collapse (full, partial, toppling)

He just said it's definitely coming down.

You avoided the question. Is he lying? Shouldn't he know better than you or I?

[leftofthedial]

14. how could anybody possibly know?

[Bolo Boffin]

16. You can know if that guy is lying or not.

It's simple. Are you going to take him at his word (in which case, you have to believe that 7 WTC's collapse was a rational conclusion based on the condition of the building) or is he disinformation telling a cover story for a CD that's about to happen?

Choose wisely.

[leftofthedial]

20. we all have to choose whom to take at their word

there are many different points of view and perspectives, even among eyewitnesses.

[Bolo Boffin]

24. Do you choose to take this man at his word?

This question isn't hard.

[leftofthedial]

30. no more or less than anyone else

[Bolo Boffin]

33. Shouldn't he, a firefighter on the scene, know better than you or I? n/t

[leftofthedial]

34. who made this? who is he really?

I don't take anything at face value anymore, much less stuff that comes from, well, you.

[Bolo Boffin]

66. So your path to denial is to completely question the video.

You don't think this is a video of a firefighter in the area on 9/11.

Is this greenscreen? Can you provide a craft services order for the film shoot?

[leftofthedial]

77. Is he an expert? Was he even ever on the site

or just repeating what he thinks other firefighters told him? Or is his information maybe third or fourth hand? We have no way of knowing. He does not look like a firefighter who has just come from ground zero. He's much too clean. It was a horribly stressful, frustrating and devastating day for FDNY. His comments hardly qualify as expert testimony and do not appear to be first hand.

Are we certain he is even talking about the subject you raise in the OP?

Where did the video come from?

Did he or others say other things not in this video that would provide more information?

You brought the damned thing here. YOU verify it. It's not my job, interest or concern.


I am not on a path to denial.

[Bolo Boffin]

78. He is right there, pointing at WTC 7, leftofthedial.

"You see where the white smoke is? You see this thing leaning like this? It's definitely coming down. There's no way to stop it."

His information is firsthand. It is right there in front of his eyes. "We have no way of knowing," horse hockey.

ETA: Also, see below. You can see dust just like the WTC dust on the back of his collar and inside his shirt. He's taken off his hat and his jacket and washed off his face.

[leftofthedial]

83. "firsthand" from what appears to be about 15 blocks away

[Bolo Boffin]

88. As I've pointed out, his "clean look" isn't what it appears to be.

Nevertheless, he is pointing to a clearly visible 47-story building that is leaning and on fire. The cameraman confirms this by saying, "Right."

Watch it again.

[petgoat]

21. How come every time somebody walks by he stops talking?

And he keeps looking around to see who's overhearing him?

I've criticized the CT tapes... remember the "keep your
eyes on that building.... it's coming down" tape?
No one's lips are moving. The sound is voice over.

I've criticized the angle cut columns and the supposed
squibs at the top of the sw corner of WTC7.

I'm not calling this guy a liar. But I have questions.
How come he's so clean? Does he have a name? Was he
close to the building? Does he have personal knowledge
of the lean he describes?

Doesn't he kind of look like the guy in the ball cap
who said the towers collapsed "obviously from structural
failure because the fires were too intense"?

[Bolo Boffin]

23. PETGOAT: Do you think he is lying?

Say it straight out.

[petgoat]

25. No. I think he is of questionable credibility until he provides his

name and tells us how he knows the building was leaning.

[Bolo Boffin]

26. He says: "See that building leaning?"

That's how he knew the building was leaning. It was discernable to the observer.

Why exactly do you think he is of questionable credibility? Because he's saying something you refuse to believe? Is that a good enough reason?

He is a firefighter on the scene. Shouldn't he know better than you or I?

[petgoat]

28. It's not discernable at all. I don't see it leaning.

I told you why I think he's of questionable credibility.

He seems to be looking around, wondering who is listening.
He makes a claim he doesn't demonstrate. Your assumption
that "FDNY uniform" = "firefighter" is ... amusing.

You're as credulous about this guy as some other people
are of that self-proclaiming hero feller. He tells you
what you want to hear and you go all gaa gaa for it.

He kind of looks like George Clooney, come to think of it.

[Bolo Boffin]

31. He does demonstrate it, petgoat.

The building is right there. He points it out, and the cameraman does not dispute it.

Watching the film, we don't have our senses to help us establish the reference points of the area. There are other accounts of the lean. There are other accounts of the damage.

The building was structurally unsound and leaning, petgoat. This was apparent to people on the scene who deal with this kind of thing on a regular basis.

Your only reason for discounting what this man says is because he IS credible and he makes the controlled demolition hypothesis ludicrous. Your attempt to ad hominem the man is what's amusing, petgoat.

[petgoat]

36. He can't be credible until he provides his name and tells us how he knows.

Your "the anonymous cameraman corroborates it by not denying
it" statement is ludicrous, especially given that the guy keeps
looking over his shoulder to see who's listening, and switches
to the cover phrase "it's tough" when people walk by.

Note that the opening statement "See the thing leaning like this?"
is voice-over. We don't see the speaker.

There are several cuts in the video.

[Bolo Boffin]

40. Just say it, petgoat: you think he's lying.

You've walked right up to it. You've put it in your shopping cart. You're right there at the cash register.

Go on. Say that you think this man is lying.

And then provide your name and tell us how you know.

[petgoat]

42. Don't Sleep in the Subway, Darlin'

Are you old enough to remember that one, bolo?

Petula Clarke?

"You wander around on your own little cloud
When you don't see the why or the wherefore
You walk out on me when we both disagree
'Cause to reason is not what you care for"


Why can you not distinguish between "lacking in credibility"
and "lying"?

I don't know enough about the guy to give him credibility,
and don't know enough to call him a liar.

[Bolo Boffin]

43. Either way, you are falsifying his account without valid reason to do so. n/t

[petgoat]

44. I'm falsifying nothing. I'm declaring it lacking in credibility and of poor evidientiary value. nt

[Bolo Boffin]

46. He is pointing at the leaning, burning building.

Your ability to deny even your own attempt to falsify this account is amazing, petgoat.

[petgoat]

47. I don't see any leaning building. Do you? nt

[Bolo Boffin]

49. I see WTC 7.

I also know that a spatial judgment like that relies on being able to establish a frame of reference, something you can't do through a shaking, moving camera and a grainy, washed-out picture.

I find this person highly credible. I have no reason to think he's lying. He is on the scene, he's a firefighter, he was vetted enough to make it to the documentary.

He says the building is leaning. He thinks it is self-evident. He thinks it is definitely coming down. He thinks it's lost its structural integrity.

Therefore, it was not "unthinkable" for this idea to be present among people before WTC 7 fell.

[petgoat]

53. You don't see it leaning. You assume your anonymous witness is truthful. nt

[Bolo Boffin]

57. I have no reason to think otherwise.

It is up to you to demonstrate otherwise.

Your anonymity vs. his lack of identity? A wash.

Your claim that you can't see the building leaning vs. his on-the-scene claim that it is and it is palpable? His point.

Your claim that he looks suspicious vs. my claim that he looks shaken up because of the events of the day? My point.

He's a firefighter on the scene, and he should know better than you or I. In his judgment, that building is coming down.

Most of all, the idea that 7 would fall was extant before the building fell. Even you cannot deny this.

[mhatrw]

136. He was told it was leaning. He was simply repeating what he was told.

But we can all see the building and it ain't leaning.

[Bolo Boffin]

139. He says, "You SEE this thing leaning like this?"

The cameraman confirms, "Right."

There is no TOLD. Please stop repeating factually incorrect statements about this. Factually Incorrect Repeated Statements (FIRS) do not help your position be true. They never do. They never will. Please stop telling FIRS.

[mhatrw]

148. But we see the building itself and it ain't leaning.

It's completely obvious that the cameraman was simply humoring the guy he was interviewing.

[Bolo Boffin]

149. I defy you to prove that the building isn't leaning in that video.

G'on.

[mhatrw]

151. I can see it as well as he could from 15 blocks away.

It's not leaning.

[Bolo Boffin]

153. I'm going to take the word of the guy who was there.

No offense.

[Fainter]

159. The Earth Is Flat. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

143. More on the firefighter.

His last name is Miller. He was from Engine 3. At the time this video was shot, 3 of his men were dead.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2873871255585611926#23m00s

MSNBC apparently shot the film.

[mhatrw]

150. Weird that he wasn't one of the 503 responders interviewed for their 9/11 oral histories.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

No Miller on this list.

[Bolo Boffin]

152. That's him right there.

Listen to him.

[mhatrw]

154. OK. I just went through all the oral histories for that mention Engine 3.

No mention of any Miller in any Engine 3 9/11 oral histories:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110113.PDF

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110114.PDF

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110348.PDF

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110476.PDF

I also searched all of the 503 oral histories for "Miller." A Jimmy Miller was working with Engine 24 on 9/11. This is the only Miller mentioned in the oral histories:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110310.PDF

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110355.PDF

[Bolo Boffin]

162. Perhaps that is him.

Of course, since you didn't find a Miller from Engine 3 in the oral histories, that's ironclad proof he didn't exist. :eyes:

But if Jimmy Miller is our firefighter, it's interesting that you didn't share with the class some interesting statements about him.

We all disbursed, so I was looking for Jimmy Miller, and Jimmy Esposito and Vinnie Giammona. I don't know when I met up with them again, but I think it was on West Street, maybe a couple of blocks north of Vesey.

A lot closer than fifteen blocks to WTC 7.

[mhatrw]

165. I shared all the oral histories that mention a Miller in their entirety.

What is your problem, boloboffin?

[Fainter]

158. Exactly! n/t

[Fainter]

157. If UR Appealing To Other Accounts Then The Lean Isn't Self-Evident. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

163. I maintain it's well nigh impossible to establish if the building is leaning or not

from the video picture. The background is washed out and grainy. It took me several viewings just to be sure that I was looking at 7.

The people actually there also have their full range of senses to answer that question with. Therefore, I say that their account is sufficient to accept that the building was leaning, and that corroborates other accounts that the building was leaning.

It is self-evident to them.

[Fainter]

208. Then Petgoat Carries The Day...

it becomes a matter of whom you trust as a reliable narrator. I trust the unnamed EMT interviewed on 1010 WINS on the afternoon of 9/11 who, while right next to WTC7, was shocked to see visible concussion waves preceding the collapse. Why wasn't this man identified and his claims subjected to proof before any competent investigative body? Based on this man's statements, it is self-evident to me that 7 was brought down by explosives. That is the standard you are setting Bolo and to which Petgoat correctly objects. Petgoat is not saying the fireman is a liar, he is saying he doesn't know enough about the fireman's claims to know if the fireman reasonably believed what he claimed to have heard or seen. Here is where you come in and say the EMT is lying or mistaken...

[Bolo Boffin]

209. Are you talking about Daryl?

http://ae911truth.info/aeppt97027.html

Daryl's description of a shockwave is the rippling of the building trying to redistribute loads after a catastrophic failure of some part of the structure. It's not a concussion wave. Those are your words.

[Fainter]

210. Am I? You're Good At Ferreting Things Out, See If You...

can provide a link to the 1010 WINS interview I mentioned. Sorry, someone else's characterization of what the interviewee said doesn't cut the mustard, especially if there is still a functioning link to 1010's audio bite of the man himself (I linked to this audio in some other thread long ago and it went missing--someone took it down I think). That's the entire point Bolo, who do you trust? I'm supposed to take a debunking site on faith? I'm not even sure "Daryl" is the guy I'm talking about.

[Bolo Boffin]

211. There's a link to Daryl's audio at Gage's site right there in my link.

Go on, click it. I don't have any advertisers that you're pumping the stats up for (and never will).

[Fainter]

213. UR Correct, He Said "Shockwave", Not "Concussion" Wave...

but I'm not going to rely on your characterization of what he meant by "shockwave". Again, why wasn't "Daryl" sworn and asked to elaborate on what he witnessed and to explain what exactly he meant by his statement? I see him called an emergency worker. Where is it established he was a medical student-- got a link?

[Twist_U_Up]

37. I dont think he was talking about 7.

The video is to blurry
Arent there stronger theories you could throw out there Bolo ?

[Bolo Boffin]

39. You can see 7 in the picture, Twist.

It's very washed out, but it's there.

[Twist_U_Up]

155. After the edit at 10 sec maybe.

This video was put together. He was talking WTC 5 or the Marriot.

[Bolo Boffin]

164. Your evidence he was talking WTC 5 or the Marriott? nt

[Laurier]

98. So, what's stopping you from making those inquiries?

Why don't you call up the FDNY and ask them who he is and then do some research into whatever else you might find about him?

Scared of what you might find out? Lazy? Other?

[petgoat]

100. If he's genuine FDNY so what? He's 15 blocks away. His opinion is worthless. nt

[Laurier]

104. Worthless? It's a lot more valuable than yours.

And you didn't answer the question.

What is stopping you from making those inquiries that you are trying so hard to pretend that you are in search of?

[Twist_U_Up]

35. Does he know John Gross the liar from NIST?

If he does,I say, YES !!
Besides you have other videos of firefighters telling people to get back there bombs in the building.
So who knows.
old news, you should just move on. ;-)

[Bolo Boffin]

41. Your attempts to hijack and distract will not succeed.

The videos about "bombs" are about Stuyvesant High School, where a false report of a bomb was relayed to people.

[petgoat]

45. "Is he lying?" is dishonest framing. "Is he credible?" is the question. No he's not.

Is he really FDNY?

Is he just shooting his mouth off or did he really see the
building leaning?

If he saw it leaning from so far away, how come nobody else
saw it?

[Bolo Boffin]

48. I said: "Do you think the man is lying?" Obviously, you think that he is.

Other people did see it leaning.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/accountsofwtc7damage

Capt. Chris Boyle:

"Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see."

Richard Picciotto, FDNY Battalion Commander

"Five World Trade Center was fully involved, Six World Trade Center was roaring pretty good, and behind them Seven World Trade Center was teetering on collapse."

So these guys, you know their name. Are they credible, petgoat?

[whatchamacallit]

50. Wow you've got me trembling with anticipation

Nobody here can honestly say if this guy is lying. But, such a relentless inquisition must have a surprise dramatic payoff. So, since I can hardly wait to find out what happens when someone takes the bait, here goes:

Yeah, he's lying. He's lying out his ass.

Now what happens?

[petgoat]

52. How dare you call a 9/11 hero a liar! blah blah blah nt

[Bolo Boffin]

55. What happens now.

The disinterested reader will decide.

Your reason for declaring him a liar is just asinine, "to find out what I'll do."

Petgoat's reason is revealing. His only reason for rejecting the simple, on-the-scene account is that it doesn't let him believe what he wants to believe about 7 World Trade. So he is flailing about, looking for the slightest reason to find the man untrustworthy. "He's looking around! You can't tell the building's leaning. Who is this guy, anyway?"

That last one is the best one. The anonymous petgoat attacks the man for being unidentified.

I leave it for the reader and viewer to decide who to trust in this, petgoat or the firefighter on the scene.

[petgoat]

60. Your assumption that he is FDNY is not justified.

His furtiveness and his cleanliness suggest (but by no means prove)
that he is not.

I'm sick of Building 7. I want a story I can believe, either way.
By the way, how's that NIST report coming? 25 months overdue now,
huh?

[Bolo Boffin]

64. :wow:

The contortions to which you will bend never cease to astonish, petgoat.

"Furtiveness" is your interpretation, imported conveniently to help you dismiss him.

"Cleanliness" is laughable. Lots of responders joined at various parts of the day. It doesn't mean he hasn't been working. It doesn't mean he hasn't been able to look at the building and see how badly it's damaged.

The NIST report is now due in draft form in July of this year. Do you know the reason for the delay, petgoat? Hmm?

[Bolo Boffin]

65. Petgoat, what is this on his sleeve?

[petgoat]

68. I never said he wasn't wearing an FDNY uniform. nt

[Bolo Boffin]

71. You just questioned his being a firefighter.

So what up with that? Do you think this is a crazy man, who put on his firefighting uniform and wandered down into the crowd? Do you think this is an actor, mixing with the crowd, finding cameras and putting out the disinfo?

Isn't it much more likely that it's a firefighter, petgoat?

[petgoat]

79. Take a look at the guys in the station talking about the "molten steel running down the channel

rails, like you were in a foundry, like lava...."

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3060923273573302287

I am prepared to find out that this is a hoax. They're actors,
not FDNY at all. That is the degree of skepticism I bring to the
9/11 Truth evidence.

I apply the same level of skepticism to the evidence for the
official story. Your guy might be an actor.

[Bolo Boffin]

81. Well, they aren't actors.

Did they sample the molten material to know that it was actually steel? No? Then they are describing it in terms that they can compare it too.

You are not talking to someone who denies this report. They are credible. They saw molten metal. It looked like molten steel. It could have BEEN molten steel, with the temperatures of the fires under the Pile.

[petgoat]

87. You don't know that. I don't know that. Who shot the video? nt

[Bolo Boffin]

89. Yes, I do. n/t

[Fainter]

160. Bolo Sprinkles More Fairy Dust In Your Eyes. n/t

[petgoat]

51. Don't tell me what I think.

No, your presentation of these statements is not credible.

You would have us believe that Captain Boyle is sending men into a building
that was not straight?

Commander Picciotto is obviously expressing an opinion from far away. In fact,
the context of his statement suggests that he was describing the general condition
of Ground Zero not from his observations but from his beliefs.

"As far as I was concerned, we were still trapped. I was hopeful. things were looking a whole lot better now than they were just a few minutes earlier, but we were a long way from safe and sound. Five World Trade Center was fully involved, Six World Trade Center was roaring pretty good, and behind them Seven World Trade Center was teetering on collapse."

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/accountsofwtc7damage

It's the poor quality of arguments like yours that steered me into investigating
9/11 for myself. You defeat your own case.

And of course now I spend a lot of time (and take a lot of shit) for trying to
see that the CT side doesn't defeat its own case with implausible bullshit.

I came into activism fact-checking Fahrenheit 9/11. I didn't want to believe
it, and I was much perturbed at the idea that neither the Democrats nor NPR
had reported that stuff to me. I wanted it to be lies. It wasn't.

I've been slapping down lies on both sides ever since.

[Bolo Boffin]

54. You obviously do. n/t

[petgoat]

56. I don't know enough to know he's a liar, and you don't know enough to know he's not. nt

[Bolo Boffin]

58. Yes, I do, petgoat. n/t

[petgoat]

69. You are very naive. nt

[SDuderstadt]

76. Define irony

Petgoat calling Bolo "naive".

[Grateful for Hope]

59. I have seen enough of your posts, PetGoat

to believe that you are sincere in your efforts to determine the truth of 9/11, whatever that might be.

I agree with your assessment here that not enough is known about the OP to assess whether it is credible or not.

[SDuderstadt]

75. My nomination for most unintentionally ironic statement of the year...

"I've been slapping down lies on both sides ever since."


Luckily, I wasn't drinking coffee when I stumbled upon this gem, or I'd be shopping for a new laptop now.

[Laurier]

102. How can you possibly know if you can't even be bothered to find out who he is?

Seriously. How can you claim that he is not credible if you haven't even made any efforts to find out who he is?

Seriously.

[petgoat]

103. He is not credible until I know who he is. It's bolo's job to find out who he is, not mine. nt

[Laurier]

105. Nonsense.

He is credible unless and until you provide evidence that calls him into question. There is nothing unique about that.

So, what's stopping you from making your own inquiries? Fear?

[petgoat]

125. The evidence that calls him into question is that he is unidentified

and there is no reason to believe that his expressed opinion that
the building is leaning is based on his own observations.

[SDuderstadt]

128. Except it's clear that he can SEE...

the freaking building. Aren't you dizzy from all your silly gymnastics?

[petgoat]

145. I'm not dizzy, It's simple responsible epistemology. Are you dizzy? nt

[Bolo Boffin]

147. :eyes:

Please allow your responsible epistemology to see my post #143.

[freedom fighter jh]

61. What does his statement imply?

He says the building can't stand up because it's leaning. The implication is that parts of it, or maybe the whole thing, will topple over and collapse, not that the whole thing will come down in apparent free fall.

[Bolo Boffin]

63. He makes no prediction about how it will fall down, only that it will.

That means the idea that the building would fall down is not the "unthinkable" thing that CD advocates portray about that day. It means the BBC argument is hooey on the part of CD advocates.

While petgoat assails the man, the larger issue he is skirting is clear. It was common knowledge on 9/11 that 7 World Trade might fall down. People could look at the building and see this.

7 World Trade is smoking, but it is not a gun.

[freedom fighter jh]

67. What was unthinkable was the way the building fell down.

His statement does nothing to change that.

The BBC argument is not that it was expected that the building would fall, but that it was announced that the building had fallen already -- before it did.

[Bolo Boffin]

70. And to explain the BBC announcement...

you think it more likely that they read a script for the day too early instead of making a mistake in the confusion of the day?

Really?

[freedom fighter jh]

84. Can you explain how this clip makes the BBC argument into "hooey"?

I must be missing something.

[Bolo Boffin]

86. The BBC argument says that

BBC couldn't have announced the collapse of the building unless they were following a script.

No building had ever fallen before like 7 World Trade, so no one should have "known" the building was going to collapse.

However, this clip shows that people were thinking the building would collapse before it did. This is not somebody's recollection. This is somebody on the scene stating that the building would fail because of structural damage and fire.

The BBC announcement then becomes a simple mistake during an extremely confusing day.

[rAVES]

62. Theres an edit at 15 seconds in.. or so.

[Bolo Boffin]

80. This "he's too clean" stuff needs to stop.

You can see in the first clip that firefighters are walking away with their heavy jackets and hats. The firefighter then is shown without a jacket and without a hat.

And he has dust on his collar. It's caked on the back and inside the man's shirt. All he's done is taken off his jacket and his hat and washed his face. :10 on.

[screembloodymurder]

82. Yes I do.

I believe my own eyes. It wasn't leaning.

[Twist_U_Up]

91. These construction workers say its about to "BLOW" up

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9CXQY-bZn4&feature=related

do you believe them ?

[petgoat]

92. Looks to me like those guys' lips aren't moving. More voice-overs. Not credible. nt

[Laurier]

106. Some would say, "put up or shut up".

I would agree. So, how about it, goat?

[MinM]

122. More voice-overs? Or off camera? nt

nt

[petgoat]

127. Can you tell the difference? I can't. Who made the video? nt

[greyl]

93. Try hard as we might, some just won't be reasoned with, eh bolo?

At least this thread was somewhat more interesting than when Kingshakabobo posted the same video evidence that WTC7 was expected to collapse because it suffered severe structural damage.

[Bolo Boffin]

94. True.

A former CD believer mentioned that it was this video that made them consider, and the whole house of cards collapsed. I thought it was worth another shot.

[greyl]

95. Optimism isn't a bad thing. ;) nt

[mhatrw]

107. He's not lying. Somebody TOLD him this.

The question is, by what means did this somebody accurately predict that something that had never before happened in human history was going to happen in the case of WTC-7?

[Bolo Boffin]

109. Where did you get that from?

He is pointing at the leaning, burning WTC 7, mhatrw. They cannot get into the building to stop the fire because it's lost its structural integrity. It's definitely going down.

There is no TELLING. He is looking at it right there. He doesn't say, "Somebody told me it's going to fall." He says it's going to fall.

[mhatrw]

110. So, then, how did he make this determination on his own, boloboffin?

Is he some sort of a civil engineering expert? Did he realize that no fireproofed steel framed high-rise in the history of the world had ever collapsed due to fire before? How was he able to correctly predict a collapse of which all the experts at FEMA concluded "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence."

How is it that some random Joe knew for sure that the WTC-7 was going to collapse BEFORE it collapsed on the day of 9/11, yet FEMA's experts were not able to explain how or why it collapsed months later?

Please explain what secret knowledge this guy had on 9/11 that he subsequently withheld from FEMA and how he came upon it.

[Bolo Boffin]

111. Big building on fire, leaning. No firefighters fighting the fire.

That's how he made this determination, mhatrw. It's not that difficult a leap to make. There is no secret information. The building was huge, was on fire, and was leaning over. "It's definitely going down."

Firefighters fight fires to keep buildings from falling down. Structural steel is fireproofed to keep buildings from falling down.

You do understand that the FEMA assessment laid out several scenarios and recommended that a lot more study needed to be done, right? Which is why NIST was commissioned to take over? FEMA doesn't say that fire taking down the building was a low probability. Their best explanation of the specifics is what had the low probability. Do you understand that crucial difference?

On 9/11, many people thought that building was going to fall, and it did. This is undeniable.

[mhatrw]

112. This is nothing new.

Dozens of first responders reported that they were informed by unnamed authorities that WTC-7 was going to collapse. That's why these first responders were forced to clear the entire WTC-7 complex for hours while they waited for WTC-7 to fall.

However, these facts only compound the questions. Who at the top of the NYC food chain predicted WTC-7 was going to fall and then spread the word that because of this all first responders must vacate the premises? On what evidence and whose expertise was this decision made? Why wasn't FEMA even remotely impressed with the so-called "obvious" evidence and expertise that "forced" the FDNY to order all responders to vacate the entire WTC complex for hours while waiting for WTC-7 to collapse?

Finally and most importantly, who was allowed access to the WTC complex while the first responders were barred from the premises and what were they doing?

[Bolo Boffin]

113. You're telling me.

Who at the top of the NYC food chain predicted WTC-7 was going to fall and then spread the word that because of this all first responders must vacate the premises?

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden was a part of that group...

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html

...but the final call came from Daniel Nigro.

Visconti was in charge of the evacuation process. His comments about WTC 7 are right on target:

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/visconti.html'

On what evidence and whose expertise was this decision made?

Hayden's got the evidence. The transit, the leaning, the burning, the "can't fight it." He calls it one battle they were going to lose.

Why wasn't FEMA even remotely impressed with the so-called "obvious" evidence and expertise that "forced" the FDNY to order all responders to vacate the entire WTC complex for hours while waiting for WTC-7 to collapse?

This is your imagination. I don't know where you get the idea that FEMA wasn't even remotely impressing. Can the hyperbole, please.

Finally and most importantly, who was allowed access to the WTC complex while the first responders were barred from the premises and what were they doing?

Your evidence that anyone was?

It is beyond doubt that people thought the building was going to fall. The BBC report becomes a simple mistake. It was not unthinkable for that building to fall, especially not after the towers had fallen.

[mhatrw]

114. I'm telling you that you need to read this.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200701/MacQueenWaitingforSeven.pdf

[Bolo Boffin]

115. He just said what I said.

7 falling was a natural thought after the towers fell.

Of course he begs the question of the towers being a CD, and gets sinister implications in about the "engineer-type" guy, and for a special bonus, he twists some of Ganci's last words.

Nice. So? Your point?

My point is, the idea that the building was going to fall was out there. It was not unthinkable. It was not irrational. It was backed up by the clear evidence.

ETA: MacQueen also mixes up expectations of the towers collapsing and of 7 collapsing in the appendix. W can discuss this in your nice new thread, if you like.

Also, I recommend you read Mackey's paper, the one that MacQueen is trying to respond to. It's quite thorough.

[mhatrw]

116. Of the oral histories, basically only a handful of chiefs say they thought WTC-7

was going to fall based on anything other than what they were told by their superiors, and even these chiefs never say exactly what observations led them to correctly predict the first collapse of a steel-frame high-rise building due to fire in world history hours before it fell.

There are three possibilities to explain this:

1) the collapse of WTC-1 & WTC-2 led these chiefs to suddenly disregard everything they knew about the history of steel-frame high-rise fire,

2) some un-cited insider with presumed expertise made the determination that WTC-7 was going to collapse and somehow persuaded the fire chiefs that its collapse was imminent, or

3) one or more of the FDNY fire chiefs in charge on 9/11 somehow knew for a fact that WTC-7 was coming down despite the fact that no a steel-frame high-rise building had ever before collapsed due to fire in world history.

You, on the other hand, would have us believe that it was somehow "natural" for this small handful of generally very prominent individuals to correctly predict the first collapse of a steel-frame high-rise building due to fire in world history hours before it occurred based on nothing more than the assurances of this select few (several of whom made some very dubious speculations and none of whom mention any hard scientific evidence that led them to their clairvoyant predictions) that this is how they "felt" at the time.

The bottom line is that whatever "evidence" that caused the fire chiefs to tell their charges that WTC-7's collapse was imminent hours before it actually fell was completely ignored by the actual building collapse experts tasked by FEMA to explain WTC-7's collapse. So if WTC-7's collapse was actually perfectly obvious to all that day for obvious scientifically valid reasons as you ridiculously claim, how in the hell can you explain FEMA's conclusion?

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence."

[Bolo Boffin]

117. "even these chiefs never say exactly"... That is a lie.

Hayden's clear enough about the transit. The building was on fire. Nigro didn't want to take the slightest chance. You must stop lying about the circumstances of this decision.

You also continue to display no ability to comprehend what it is that FEMA is saying. They are not questioning that fire brought down the badly damaged building. They are saying that in their limited resources, they could only assign a low probability to the best of their numerous collapse sequences. The basic facts are not in question, and it was the basic facts that convinced the FDNY of the building's imminent collapse.

You are committing the same error as a creationist slandering evolution here. Evolution is a fact, despite several theories to explain how it works. A creationist points to scientific debate and wonders why creationism/intelligent design can't be considered as well. Rubbish. Evolution is a fact. The building fell because of fire and damage -- fact. The exact sequence is still being determined. It doesn't mean FEMA disregarded the conclusion of the firefighters, not in the slightest.

[mhatrw]

118. Hayden is NOT AT ALL clear about the transit.

First, he says NOTHING about any transit (or anything else about WTC-7) in his oral history.

When he talked to Firehouse Magazine about 9/11 six months after the fact, here is what he says:

"By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse."

So who is we? Who "put a transit on that" when? What did it show that made who sure that "she was going to collapse"? None of this is clear, and this is the ONLY mention of any evidence other than casual visual evidence for "our" making the bizarre (and bizarrely accurate) prediction that the first steel framed high-rise was about to fall due to fire damage in the history of the world.

You also continue to display no ability to comprehend what it is that FEMA is saying. They are not questioning that fire brought down the badly damaged building. They are saying that in their limited resources, they could only assign a low probability to the best of their numerous collapse sequences. The basic facts are not in question, and it was the basic facts that convinced the FDNY of the building's imminent collapse.

No, they are not questioning that fire brought down WTC-7. That is the only explanation they considered. But the rest of your statement is utter bullshit. What FEMA said is that they don't know why WTC-7 collapsed. Your Orwellian doublespeak can't change this fact. "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence."

My point remains the same and it remains completely unanswered by you. If FEMA's experts couldn't figure out how or why WTC-7 collapsed on 9/11, going so far as to say that their best guess (a massive diesel fire that did not occur) had a low probability of happening -- how in the hell did a handful of NYC fire chiefs correctly predict WTC-7 was going to collapse on 9/11 hours before it fell?

[Grateful for Hope]

121. Excellent question

If FEMA's experts couldn't figure out how or why WTC-7 collapsed on 9/11, going so far as to say that their best guess (a massive diesel fire that did not occur) had a low probability of happening -- how in the hell did a handful of NYC fire chiefs correctly predict WTC-7 was going to collapse on 9/11 hours before it fell?

[Name removed]

123. Deleted message

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

[whatchamacallit]

130. So, let me get this straight

The reason you feel justified in calling this mhatrw fellow a liar is

a)you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is fully aware that the opinions he posts are totally erroneous

b)it feels good

[Bolo Boffin]

132. I did not call mhatrw a liar. That would be against the rules.

I said that his post was a pack of lies. He or she posted a lot of lies and continues to do so, and I wonder why. All quite within the rules.

So kindly take the rest of your post and return to the orifice from whence it came.

ETA: As mhatrw rightfully pointed out, it is against the rules to call a post a lie. Therefore I apologize for calling his or her often repeated, stubbornly held to, factually incorrect statements lies.

[mhatrw]

134. You need to reread the rules.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

Do not hurl insults at other individual members of this message board. Do not tell someone, "shut up," "screw you," "fuck off," "in your face," or some other insult.

Do not call another member of this message board a liar, and do not call another member's post a lie.

[Bolo Boffin]

141. Ah. Then I apologize for calling your factually untrue statements, often repeated, "lies." n/t

[Name removed]

146. Deleted message

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

[mhatrw]

131. Who operated the transit at what times? Who took the transit measurements?

What were the transit measurements? Why wasn't FEMA informed about this? Why didn't FEMA's report mention these transit measurements or anything about the fact that WTC-7 was supposedly bulging and/or leaning before it collapsed?

Sixty responders discussed being warned about WTC-7 collapsing in the original oral histories of 9/11. Not one mentioned one solitary thing about observing the building leaning. Not one mentioned one solitary thing about observing the building bulging. Not one mentioned one solitary thing about anyone putting a transit on the building. Why not? Why didn't any of these responders mention anything about any of this in their oral histories or to FEMA's investigators?

You also need to stop pretending that steel framed high-rise buildings cannot fall due to fire.

You need to stop pretending that fireproofed steel framed high-rise buildings can completely collapse due to fire. Outside of 9/11, none ever have. If you dispute this, tell us the name of the building and the date it collapsed.

FEMA said they do not know the specifics of how the fires caused the damaged building to collapse.

Quote from me just one sentence from the FEMA report in which FEMA's investigators say that the damage to WTC-7 and subsequent fires made WTC-7's eventual collapse in any way obvious or inevitable. You can't. And this fact leads us right back to the question that you keep studiously ignoring. If FEMA's experts couldn't figure out how or why WTC-7 collapsed on 9/11, going so far as to say that their best guess (a massive diesel fire that did not occur) had a low probability of happening -- how in the hell did a handful of NYC fire chiefs correctly predict WTC-7 was going to collapse on 9/11 hours before it fell?

[Bolo Boffin]

133. More footstamping. I cannot make you see reason. n/t

[mhatrw]

135. That's a pack of lies.

:rofl:

What you can't do is answer the questions.

[Bolo Boffin]

140. I have answered the question. You don't like the answer. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

137. It's more than disingenuous to imply...

that anyone is saying WTC7 collapsed solely due to fire. You're conveniently leaving out the massive damage to the building from the collapse of Towers 1 & 2, which can be seen merely by looking at a freaking picture of WTC 7.

[mhatrw]

138. What's disingenous to imply that FEMA's investigators thought that WTC-7's

collapse was in any way obvious or inevitable given its observed damage and fires. What FEMA could not explain was not the exact manner in which WTC-7 collapsed so neatly and completely but why WTC-7 should have collapsed at all given that it was a fireproofed, steel-framed high-rise supposedly built to code.

[SDuderstadt]

142. Nobody's talking about FEMA, Sparky...

Try to stay on topic and quit trying to change the subject. Please show me where I talked or implied ANYTHING about FEMA.

[2rth2pwr]

108. completely photoshopped. nt

[Twist_U_Up]

119. Yep you can see the edit just as hes talking about wtc 7

right about the 10 second mark.

Who knows wtf he was talking about.

[mrgerbik]

144. agreed - edited @ 11 seconds

It may be slightly out of context.

It doesn't clearly show that he KNEW. It may have been that he was simply stating a hypothesis at the time - after seeing WTC1 and 2 collapse, he may well have been jumping to conclusions.

[SDuderstadt]

126. Omigod!

If you play the video at full screen size on a really large monitor in slow motion, you can see quite clearly that the "firefighter" is wearing a Mason ring!

I am now officially converting to the "truther" camp.

I'm assuming the little sarcasm thingy isn't necessary here.

[Bolo Boffin]

129. I found myself converted a while back...I forget why.

I think it was one of those stupid polls that asked an open-ended, non-specific question that garnered an 84% response, and people began waving it around like it was proof that the American public believed in space beams or something.

No, it was a petition to release documents, which I've got no problem with. It was about the Tenet/Rice meeting in the summer, I think. Yes, get that stuff out in the open. Let's find out all about that.

So I was a truther, I guess, if that's the criteria.

[JackRiddler]

166. False dilemma.

[SDuderstadt]

167. How, specifically...

is Bolo's question a fasle dilemma?

[JackRiddler]

168. This one might be called "pretend stupid"

[SDuderstadt]

169. What might be called....

"pretend stupid"?

[Bolo Boffin]

170. Not at all.

What am I using the firefighter's account to establish? The existence of the idea that WTC 7 could fall that afternoon.

If Firefighter Miller is not lying, then he is honestly giving us his view on what's going to happen to that building. That's not a false dilemma, it is a true dilemma for the conspiracy theorists that claim the collapse of WTC 7 was unthinkable, who assail the BBC for stating that the building had fallen, and who prance about exulting in "first time in history" flattery.

It is a true dilemma for these people, Jack. For fencesitters like yourself, it's just a little shove to recognize more fruitful pastures.

[freedom fighter jh]

171. It sounds like he's been fed a line.

The way he gropes around ... "'Cuz you have to go up there to put it out and it's already ... the the the structural integrity is not there in the building." "Structural integrity" sounds like something he was told. If he'd seen the structural problem himself he would more likely have said "Half the columns have been knocked out" or whatever he had seen. There doesn't seem to be a connection between whatever he's seen and "the structural integrity is not there."

[SDuderstadt]

172. What bullshit...

why wouldn't a firefighter talk about structural integrity? Do you have any idea what training they get, especially those that fight high-rise fires??

[freedom fighter jh]

187. You need to wash your mouth out with soap.

No, I don't have any idea what training they get. Tell me.

I believe a structural engineer who saw a building that was ready to fall would say something dramatic like "the columns are melting and can't hold it up" or "all the columns have been severed" rather than say something vague about structural integrity. The *less* he knew what was going on the more he would talk about structural integrity, because he had been told those words and could not express himself any more precisely.

[SDuderstadt]

189. He wasn't a structural engineer...

he was a firefighter. Duh.

Below is a link to the syllabus to a high-rise firefighting course. Note the sections entitled: "Potential for Collapse of high-rise structures whilst under fire attack" and "Dynamic Risk Assessment".

http://www.firetactics.com/HRFTI%20-%202006.pdf

http://osfm.fire.ca.gov/pdf/training/CIARM.pdf (see page 10)

[Truthiness]

173. Many firefighters on the scene reported multiple secondary explosions

So their words should be taken into account as well. As you point out, they were on the scene. They saw the buildings. Shouldn't they know better than you or I about what was happening?

[SDuderstadt]

174. And that proves?

Either that they heard what they thought were explosions (many things sound like an explosions, for example floors hitting other floors, bodies hitting the ground...see below) or actual explosions. Are you concluding that explosions could ONLY be from demolition? Or, are you taking into account that many things in a building could explode, for example fuel tanks or oil-filled transformers?

The other thing that renders this less than conclusive as to demolition is that, upon reading many of the quotes (as distributed by many well-meaning but sloppy and even dishonest sources) and comparing them to the full quote, you'll find many times that the quote has been clipped to exclude something that demonstrates they did not think it was either a real explosion or was something other than explosives.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/whattheyheard

P.S. For the record, I despise the Bush administration.

[Truthiness]

175. Good questions, they deserve to be brought up in a fair, impartial hearing

There hasn't been one yet. That's all I'm asking. The truth is ALWAYS on the side of the good guys, so it doesn't really matter either way, right?

[SDuderstadt]

176. I'm not opposed in the least to further investigations, but..

i think it needs to be clear exactly what is being investigated. I also think there have been plenty of disinterested and impartial participants in various phases of the various investigations, for example, ASCE. In my opinion, what needs further investigation is the negligence and inaction of the Bush Administration prior to 9/11 and their calculating and callous assault on the constitution since. What doesn't need further investigation, again in my opinion, is the engineering aspects or the facts as related by the first responders that day. The evidence there is quite clear and is being sufficiently examined by NIST and leading experts in structural engineering, fire safety and metallurgy.

[Truthiness]

177. The final report on WTC 7 hasn't yet been publicly released

So I'm not certain what clear and sufficient evidence you are citing with regard to the collapse of the building. The 2002 FEMA report on WTC Building 7 came up with the following:

Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.

Hmmm. Not very clear or sufficent at all, I'd say. But correct me if I'm wrong.

[SDuderstadt]

178. Start here

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/nist%2Cfemareports%2C911structuralengineerin

[Truthiness]

179. Your website says "NIST's investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 is ongoing"

SDuderstadt, an "ongoing investigation" of the collapse of WTC 7 hardly amounts to "solid" or "sufficient" evidence. On the contrary. If you care to, link directly to the solid and sufficient evidence of the causes of the collapse of WTC 7 that you claim.

[Bolo Boffin]

180. And you be sure to do the same.

Link to your "solid and sufficient evidence of the causes of the collapse of WTC 7 that you claim."

[Grateful for Hope]

181. He's not "claiming" anything.

He is asking for an impartial investigation of the events of 9/11 which should include an investigation of why WTC7 collapsed, since solid evidence of the reason(s) has yet to be presented. I agree with him.

[Bolo Boffin]

184. The hell he isn't. n/t

[Grateful for Hope]

185. link please. n/t

[AZCat]

200. So let me get this straight...

You are asking for an impartial investigation of the collapse of WTC7, even though there is an ongoing investigation. So you're ruling out the results of the NIST investigation even before it is finished?

[Grateful for Hope]

201. Yup

I would much rather see a group not connected with the government investigate -- preferably an international group.

[AZCat]

202. Why?

Don't you see that any group of qualified individuals is going to be connected to the government (although not necessarily ours)? There is no such thing as a truly independent investigation.

[Grateful for Hope]

206. Not true

This needs to be a civil investigation, not a government-sponsored investigation.

[AZCat]

207. Fine. If you don't believe me...

then try yourself to find a group of qualified individuals who don't have connections to the government. Good luck - I don't think you'll be able to do it.

[Truthiness]

182. boloboffin, I never claimed to have "solid and sufficient evidence"

Boloboffin, there you are. That didn't take long. I never claimed to have solid and sufficient evidence for the causes of the collapse of WTC 7. All I'm asking for is an impartial and comprehensive examination and hearing of the evidence. To date there has been none.

[Bolo Boffin]

183. What solid and specific evidence do you think isn't getting investigated?

***bolo braces himself***

[SDuderstadt]

186. How is the NIST investigation not....

impartial and comprehensive? In fact, it's largely due to the comprehensiveness of the investigation that they're not finished. Do you even know how they are going about the investigation? Do you think ASCE would not object in a flash if it were not proceeding in a comprehensive and ultimately fair manner? Again, if the "truth" movement possesses any conclusive, hard evidence of CD, by all means, present it. As it is, it is the lack of such from the "truth movement" that makes them such a laughingstock.

[Truthiness]

198. I don't recommend judging a book by its cover

How would you know that the NIST investigation is either impartial or comprehensive? The results haven't been released yet. Just as I don't review movies before seeing them, I think its foolish to review scientific reports before they are actually published.

Another point: It's been over 6 years now, and we still don't have a reliable, comprehensive explanation about what actually happened with Building 7. No matter what you say, that is a notable fact.

[AZCat]

199. But that isn't necessarily an indictment of the ongoing investigation...

so much as an indicator of the complexity of the problem.

[Truthiness]

203. True, good point - I hope that the investigation report is thorough

and unbiased. Perhaps it will be.

[AZCat]

205. We won't be able to judge until it is released.

I had hoped it would be earlier but I prefer they sacrifice speed for accuracy. Whether they indeed do that is still unknown.

[freedom fighter jh]

188. So these firefighters who are so well trained that they know all about structural integrity

can't, after all their training and experience, tell explosions from crashes?

Can you tell me more about those well-meaning but dishonest sources?

[SDuderstadt]

190. Are you now claiming the fire fighters are incompetent because....

other things sound like explosions? Are you kidding?

As far as your second question, try the link I already provided and this one:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_5_118Witnesses_WorldTradeCenter.pdf

[freedom fighter jh]

191. No, I'm saying your logic breaks down when you try to have it

both ways. In another post on this thread you said firefighters know enough about structures to say when a building has lost its structural integrity. Here you say they don't know explosions from crashes. I'd say the second issue is much more up their alley than the first -- so how come they have to be right on the first and wrong on the second?

Thanks for the link. The second question was rhetorical, meant to make the same point: Your logic breaks down when you try to have it both ways.

[SDuderstadt]

192. Show me where I said they....

don't know explosions from crashes. What I said was it's hard to tell the sound of an explosion from other things that can be mistaken for the same thing. I'm trying to figure out what kind of training you would give to anyone, let alone a firefighter, that would train them to distinguish between things that sound alike. What in the world does that have to do with the ability to either see, sense or measure that a building lacks structural integrity?

How in the world you get to the conclusion I am trying to have it both ways is beyond me. Are you saying if one is competent at one, they must be competent at the other? How do you figure that? I owuld love to see your logical proof for that. In fact, if my logic "breaks down", it should be easy for you to point to the logical fallacy I have supposedly committed, by name, please.

[freedom fighter jh]

195. Logical fallacy: trying to have it both ways

You argued that of course they know can recognize the absence of structural integrity, because after all they are firefighters. You argued also that they don't know explosions from crashes, because the two sound alike. THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE SOUND OF EXPLOSIONS AND THE SOUND OF CRASHES IS MUCH MORE IN THE LINE OF THEIR EXPERTISE THAN ARE QUESTIONS OF STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF A HIGH-RISE. THEY ARE NOT TRAINED AS ENGINEERS AND HIGH-RISE STEEL-FRAMED BUILDINGS DO NOT COLLAPSE ROUTINELY, EVEN FROM FIRE. But experienced firefighters have seen and heard a lot of explosions and a lot of crashes and have some basis for distinguishing between the two.

Firefighters may know everything, or they may know nothing, or like the rest of us they may fall somewhere in between. My bet would be on the last. And I think the things they know about are the things they learn from, and have to know for, their work. So when you say the opposite -- they can recognize the absence of structural integrity but they can't distinguish crashes from explosions -- you are trying to have it both ways.

[SDuderstadt]

196. For the last fricking time...

I did NOT say they cannot tell the difference between crashes and explosions, I SAID there is not anything unusual about a crash sounding like an explosion, therefore, it is not at all suspicious about a firefighter confusing the SOUNDS of the two, period.

As far as I can tell, your claim appears to be along the lines of:

If firefighters can tell whether a building's structural integrity has been compromised, then they must also never be confused by something that sounds like an explosion but is actually a crash.

Or conversely, if firefighters can become confused by something that sounds like an explosion, but it actually is a crash, there is no way they should be able to determine a building's structural integrity has been compromised by hearing it creaking and groaning, seeing it leaning, feeling it leaning or measuring it leaning.

Do you understand that the accounts of firefighters hearing what they thought were explosions, only to realize that they were either bodies hitting the ground or floors collapsing on each other came from WTC 1 & 2? What the hell does that have to do with WTC 7??


For the life of me, I don't know where you're going with this argument that I am trying to have it both ways. And your claim that "THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE SOUND OF EXPLOSIONS AND THE SOUND OF CRASHES IS MUCH MORE IN THE LINE OF THEIR EXPERTISE THAN ARE QUESTIONS OF STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF A HIGH-RISE. THEY ARE NOT TRAINED AS ENGINEERS AND HIGH-RISE STEEL-FRAMED BUILDINGS DO NOT COLLAPSE ROUTINELY, EVEN FROM FIRE" is nowhere supported by anything. Are you claiming that the events of 9/11 were routine? In claiming that high-rise steel-framed buildings do not collapse routinely, even from fire, are you forgetting or even denying the extensive structural damage the collapse of WTC's 1 & 2 inflicted on WTC 7? Do you think all buildings react the same way to fire AND structural damage? If you want to compare the collapse of WTC 7 to a comparable building, fine. Do the following:

1) Find a steel frame building at least 40 stories high

2) Which takes up a whole city block

3) And is a "Tube in a tube" design

4) Which came off its core columns at the bottom floors (Earthquake, fire, whatever)

5) Which was struck by another building and had structural damage as a result.

6) And weakened by fire for over 6 hours

7) And had trusses that were bolted on with two 5/8" bolts.

Find another building that meets ALL those criteria and you might have something. Otherwise, you're comparing apples to oranges.

Are you honestly claiming that fire departments are not interested in assessing the risk associated with building collapse? Are you honestly claiming that the FDNY is lying about their determination that WTC 7 was in danger of collapsing and, therefore it was not only necessary to withdraw firefighters from the building and establish a collapse zone around the building to prevent further loss of life?

This is quickly becoming pointless. If you want to explore it further, I suggest you go to a FDNY station and take it up with them directly. Seeing how hundreds of their colleagues lost their lives that day, I'm sure they'd be amused by your claim. Make sure to let us know how that goes.

[BillDouglas]

212. 9/11 TRUTH IS ABOUT AN ABILITY TO HANDLE THE TRUTH

Most of us who've learned 9/11 was an inside job, have been very dissapointed that friends and family have been unable to handle the facts we've told them about.

WHAT IF THEY COULD BE GIVEN THOSE FACTS IN A WAY THAT WAS LESS THREATENING ??

On Jan. 22, a novel by N.Y. Times Best Selling author, Steve Alten, entitled "THE SHELL GAME"
will be available in prime spots in stores across America, airports, etc.

Many 9/11 activists are now buying multiple copies to give out to friends and family who simply couldn't handle the truth, but do love a good novel.

See www.TheShellGame.net to see that this best selling novelist wants to help us get the truth out.

You'll find a 911 Trailer there that warns of 9/11 as an inside job and future strikes. Post that video clip everywhere !!

=========================

We, the undersigned, urge everyone seeking truth, peace and justice, to not only purchase this new novel, "The Shell Game," but also to email out this appeal to all you know who seek truth, peace and justice in the form of 9/11 truth coming out. In turn, please urge them to do the same with all their contacts and urge them to do the same. We can break 9/11 truth open if we work together and focus on this project for the next 30 days.

Yours in 9/11 truth, peace and justice,

Bill Douglas, 911 Visibility Project
Co-Signatories:
Dr. Steven Jones – Physicist who discovered controlled demolition substances in WTC debris
Janice Matthews - 911Truth.org Executive Director
David Ray Griffin - 9/11 Researcher and Author
Kevin Ryan -former UL chemistry laboratory manager & NIST report whistle blower
Dr. Robert Bowman - Rtd. Colonel US Air Force, 9/11 truth leader; thepatriots.us/
Rob Balsamo – Pilots for 9/11 Truth
Carol Brouillet - Organizer of 1st National 9/11 Truth Conference in San Francisco
Mike Berger - "Improbable Collapse" Documentary Producer - 911Truth Spokesman
David Kubiak - 911Truth.org Board member
Kevin Barrett – Muslim/Christian/Jewish Alliance for 9/11 Truth
Michael Wolsey – Visibility911.com
Peter Dale Scott – Author of, “The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America,” (University of California Press., 2007)

============================================


9/11 TRUTH ALERT! New York Times best selling author writes 9/11 TRUTH novel!


In the 9/11 truth movement we have seen heroes step forward and risk their livelihoods, their reputations . . . everything, in the name of truth. Today another hero has stepped forward to put it all on the line for truth. A New York Times best selling author has taken the big leap, and written a scalding truth telling novel, that can change everything. PLEASE HELP HIM HELP US, HELP 9/11 TRUTH, HELP AMERICA!!


HOW CAN WE HELP?
I pre-ordered The Shell Game at both Amazon.com and BN.com, and urge everyone I know to do the same! WHY? Because if this book is an action novel success, it has the ability to reach millions of readers that activism can never reach . . . action fiction readers. It is set to have prime space at Borders and Barnes and Noble. I plan to call ALL my local bookstores and make sure they plan to stock it. Please do the same!

This book is set in a future US President’s administration, involving false flag terror. However, throughout the book, real life quotes and news clips leave any reader with an increasing awareness that 9/11 was not what we were told it was. Here are a few clips from real life quotes, etc. that lead into various chapters in the book:


“Where was the military? General Richard Myers and Mike Snyder both said no military jets were sent up until after the strike on the Pentagon <9:38>. Yet American Airlines Flight 11 had shown two of the standard signs of hijacking at 8:15. This means that procedures that usually result in interception within ten or so minutes had not been carried out in eighty minutes. That enormous delay suggested that a stand-down order, canceling standard procedures, must have been given.”

-- Professor David Ray Griffin,
The 9/11 Commission’s Incredible Tales

“Over the course of two years Hopsicker not only added information to what was known about military training, he established that some of the hijackers associated with wealthy Floridians had both intelligence and Bush family connections. Hopsicker also confirmed that within hours after the attacks, Florida Governor Jeb Bush had a military C-130 Hercules transport fly into the Venice airport where a hastily loaded rental truck, filled with the records of Huffman Aviation – where Atta, Alshehri, and others had trained – was driven directly into the plane. The C-130 immediately took off for parts unknown.”

-- Michael C. Ruppert, from Crossing the Rubicon: The
Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil




I have found in these years of 9/11 truth activism, that we can work ourselves to death trying to make things happen . . . or we can open to opportunity and advance our cause in ways that shift the entire paradigm of possibility.

This New York Times best selling author’s new novel is one of those opportunities. If those hungering for 9/11 truth and a new investigation don’t do all we can to ensure the instant and massive success of this novel . . . we will have let an extraordinary opportunity slip through our fingers.

Bill Douglas, Founder of 911Visibility, and former national outreach director of 911Truth.org.




AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL PROGRESSIVE ORGANIZATIONS

On January 22, 2008, N.Y. Times best selling author, Steve Alten and Sweetwater Books will release The Shell Game, a cautionary tale, written in the guise of fiction, that exposes the hidden truths behind the events of September 11th and the invasion of Iraq, along with the neo-conservative agenda to wage a new war in Iran. Meticulously researched, Alten’s tour de force focuses its plot on the end of oil and the next 9/11 event, election fraud and the corporate influence that is tainting America. Its main character experiences the dangers of the Patriot Act and the effects of torture.

By writing the story as a novel, this established mainstream author brings our own important messages into mainstream America. Should the book become a big best seller, it would drive these issues into the limelight during the most important election in our nation’s history. In addition, the book’s success would raise all of the 9/11 organizations’ boats. The author’s appearances on mainstream venues such as Today Show, Good Morning America, Daily Show, David Letterman, and the Tonight Show, along with hundreds of radio, TV News, and print media will be used to generate renewed interest in our own investigative areas of interest and could very well lead to hearings while influencing the 2008 elections. Such is the power of a focused mainstream message.

HELP US HELP YOU!

A major public relations plan is already underway to launch The Shell Game onto best seller lists. Front table space has been secured in all Barnes & Nobel and Borders Bookstores. A first run of 40,000 books has been ordered (31,000 books have already been pre-sold into stores). By creating a buzz on your website/blog and asking your members to purchase the book during its opening week (JANUARY 22 – FEBRUARY 1, 2008), you can help us push the book onto every national best seller list. In doing so, you will open up mainstream venues that rarely embrace these important topics.

In exchange for your assistance, we’ll:

1. Link your site to our website. Add this video: http://www.stevealten.com/shellgame.htm
2. We’ll even help sell your books, tapes, and DVDs.
3. Recommend your organization in the second edition (and all subsequent editions) on a special dedication page of the book.
4. Steve Alten will carry your message during his publicity tour. Provide him with your talking points and watch him work…and recommend your organization.
5. Once the book becomes a topic of mainstream conversation, we’ll be arranging public symposiums and forums hosted by the author with your organization’s reps as our invited speakers.

In the past, the truths behind 9/11, the invasion of Iraq, the need to go with a green energy plan, and the looming invasion of Iran, manipulated by the neo-cons, have garnered little mainstream press. All that can change with The Shell Game. By standing together, we can finally put the spotlight on the corrupt acts that have cost countless innocent lives, maimed a generation, trampled our constitution, and have bankrupted our country’s morals.

--Trish Stevens, public relations THE SHELL GAME
--Kyle Hence, 911CitizenWatch, 9/11 Press for Truth.

The SHELL GAME
REVIEWS

"Steve Alten proves his versatility in his latest thriller THE SHELL GAME, a tour-de-force thriller tackling oil, politics, and the state of the world. Controversial, shocking, meticulously researched, and sure to raise many eyebrows in Washington, Alten has produced both a dazzling political thriller and a cautionary tale for our times. Anyone interested in the labyrinthine world of politics, international gamesmanship, and the control of oil in society needs to read this book."
--James Rollins, New York Times bestseller of The Judas Strain


“A nerve-wracking thriller about America’s addiction to Middle-Eastern sweet crude and the network of enablers who keep our dependent nation away from detox.” --Kirkus Review

"Whether you embrace it or refute it, 'The Shell Game' cannot, and should not, be easily dismissed. This is Steve Alten's boldest, bravest book to date. He's fearless, in fact, and his skills as a storyteller have not dulled. 'The Shell Game' leaves you shattered, angry and demanding change." --Andrew Tallackson, Michigan City (Ind.) News-Dispatch entertainment editor

“Action packed, intense and politically probing, "The Shell Game" is an intriguing blend of fiction and non-fiction that will most certainly disturb the practitioners of the game, because it will make readers stop and think about American foreign policy in the oil-rich Middle East.” --Richard Folsom, Washington Daily News
“Do we really trust our leaders on how much oil actually remains untapped? Do we want to leave our future, much less our children's future in the hands of power hungry government officials and greedy corporations who care little or nothing about the common individual? After reading this book I think that you will agree that fiction or not; "The Shell Game" is one of the most prolific and important books of our time. Highly recommended.” --Craig Harvey – MOVEMENT MAGAZINE