HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Offbeat » Creative Speculation (Group) » Counterterrorism Czar Acc...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:09 AM

Counterterrorism Czar Accuses Tenet and CIA of 9/11 Cover-Up



Richard Clarke drops a bombshell.


....In early January 2000, CIA analysts were informed by the National Security Agency that al-Hamzi and al-Mihdhar were heading to a meeting of other al-Qaeda associates in Malaysia, their travel arranged by Osama bin Laden’s Yemen operations center. The CIA surveilled the meeting and took photographs of the men.

From Malaysia, al-Hazmi, al-Mihdhar and Walid bin Attash, the alleged mastermind behind the USS Cole bombing, traveled to Thailand, which the CIA reported to Alec Station in a cable. Al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar then boarded a flight bound for Los Angeles, arriving in the city on January 15, 2000.

The CIA had claimed, according to the 9/11 Commission report, that they lost track of all three men in Thailand. Despite being aware that the terrorists had already obtained tourist visas, the agency still failed to notify the FBI and State Department for inclusion on the latter’s terrorist watch list. Remarkably, Mihdhar left Southern California for Yemen in June 2000 and, using a new passport, returned to the US undetected on July 4, 2001.

Clarke suggests that if the CIA had shared intelligence about al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar with him, the FBI, and others, then perhaps the attack on the Pentagon could have been thwarted. As he noted in his book, “Your Government Failed You: Breaking the Cycle of National Security Disasters,” the 9/11 Commission never fleshed out the rationale behind the CIA’s failure to share crucial intelligence information about al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar with other officials and government agencies.

“As jaded and cynical as I am about government failures, I still find this one mind-boggling and inexplicable,” Clarke wrote. “The 9/11 Commission report does not tell us very much about how or why it happened and their explanations, while they could be correct, strain credulity and leave many questions unanswered.”
....

...more

http://911truthnews.com/richard-clarke-accuses-tenet-and-cia-of-911-cover-up/

68 replies, 6775 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 68 replies Author Time Post
Reply Counterterrorism Czar Accuses Tenet and CIA of 9/11 Cover-Up (Original post)
gyroscope Jan 2012 OP
noise Jan 2012 #1
gyroscope Jan 2012 #2
William Seger Jan 2012 #3
gyroscope Jan 2012 #4
Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #5
gyroscope Jan 2012 #7
OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #6
gyroscope Jan 2012 #8
OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #12
Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #13
gyroscope Jan 2012 #17
Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #18
gyroscope Jan 2012 #21
Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #23
gyroscope Jan 2012 #24
Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #26
gyroscope Jan 2012 #28
Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #30
gyroscope Jan 2012 #33
Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #41
OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #46
Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #47
gyroscope Jan 2012 #56
Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #58
gyroscope Jan 2012 #64
Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #67
OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #60
gyroscope Jan 2012 #65
OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #68
William Seger Jan 2012 #9
gyroscope Jan 2012 #10
William Seger Jan 2012 #11
gyroscope Jan 2012 #14
William Seger Jan 2012 #15
gyroscope Jan 2012 #16
William Seger Jan 2012 #19
gyroscope Jan 2012 #22
zappaman Jan 2012 #25
gyroscope Jan 2012 #27
zappaman Jan 2012 #29
zappaman Jan 2012 #31
gyroscope Jan 2012 #32
William Seger Jan 2012 #34
gyroscope Jan 2012 #37
William Seger Jan 2012 #40
gyroscope Jan 2012 #43
William Seger Jan 2012 #44
gyroscope Jan 2012 #48
OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #49
gyroscope Jan 2012 #50
OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #51
gyroscope Jan 2012 #52
zappaman Jan 2012 #53
gyroscope Jan 2012 #54
zappaman Jan 2012 #55
gyroscope Jan 2012 #57
zappaman Jan 2012 #59
OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #61
zappaman Jan 2012 #62
gyroscope Jan 2012 #63
OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #66
zappaman Jan 2012 #36
William Seger Jan 2012 #35
gyroscope Jan 2012 #38
William Seger Jan 2012 #39
gyroscope Jan 2012 #42
William Seger Jan 2012 #45
Rosa Luxemburg Jan 2012 #20

Response to gyroscope (Original post)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 02:25 AM

1. The information was shared with the FBI

The FBI UBLU went out of their way to obstruct the USS Cole criminal investigation.

One main reason we don't know what happened is because US media would rather repeat stupid CIA talking points instead of actually investigating the story. 60 Minutes interviewed former FBI agent Ali Soufan during his book tour and made sure to note that some former CIA officials say there is no substance to the notion of CIA withholding of intelligence.

US media has never interviewed Richard Blee, chief of Alec Station from mid-'99 until 12/01, or Rod Middleton, chief of the FBI UBLU from 6/01 until 9/01.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Original post)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 02:58 AM

2. Not according to Clarke

he wasn't informed of it nor was the FBI.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #2)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 09:33 AM

3. So, now you believe...

... there were hijackers?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:09 PM

4. I dont know if you could call them hijackers

some say they could have been hijackers unwittingly acting as patsies for the CIA. or may have been just patsies. who knows. Clarke alleges the CIA attempted to recruit them. there needs to be a new independent investigation to answer that question.

the FBI says they never had enough evidence to pin 9/11 on bin laden or even indict him for it.
there are far too many unanswered questions.

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/usama-bin-laden





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #4)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:26 PM

5. That link to the FBI Most Wanted Page for bin Laden: could you tell me what this means?

"An additional $2 million is being offered through a program developed and funded by the Airline Pilots Association and the Air Transport Association."

I don't recall the use of airplanes in the embassy bombings. What on earth could these two organizations be doing offering a reward for bin Laden?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #5)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 02:08 PM

7. You would have to ask those organzations

the poster doesn't say.

Doesn't mean anything either way. the FBI commonly posts rewards offered by third parties. so what? the FBI doesn't endorse the opinion of those parties. It simply posts the reward being offered because reward money helps to attract those who might have useful information in finding the wanted suspect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #4)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:53 PM

6. "the FBI says..."

the FBI says they never had enough evidence to pin 9/11 on bin laden or even indict him for it.


Oh, FFS. Why make this kind of assertion and link to a page on which "the FBI says" no such thing? You could at least link to Rex Tomb as quoted in the Muckraker Report, right?

If you want to make a point about unanswered questions, how does it help your case to offer unsupported answers?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnTheOtherHand (Reply #6)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 02:17 PM

8. The poster makes specific mention

of what bin laden was wanted for.


Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world.


it says nothing about 9/11.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #8)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 03:38 PM

12. that's irrelevant to what you claimed

Here it is, once again, for easy reference:

the FBI says they never had enough evidence to pin 9/11 on bin laden or even indict him for it.


It isn't rationally possible to get from "the poster... says nothing about 9/11" to a claim about what the FBI says about being able to indict bin Laden. Not that the FBI does indictments, anyway.

It's true that bin Laden was never indicted in the 9/11 attacks. As 911myths.com points out, he wasn't indicted in the Cole attack, either. Does that mean that the FBI didn't have enough evidence to indict bin Laden for the Cole attack? No, it doesn't mean that. You might be able to make that case, but you can't infer the conclusion from the absence of an indictment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #8)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 03:39 PM

13. "Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world."

What could they mean by this statement?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #13)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 05:17 PM

17. That would be in reference to other smaller attacks

that were less significant in scope or scale than the ones listed by name. or to ones that did not involve American casualties

clearly, if the wanted poster was referring to the 9/11 attack they would have listed it by name...since as we all know that was the biggest most significant one of all, involving large loss of American lives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #17)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 05:25 PM

18. So the USS Cole attack is not a significant attack and did not involve American casualties?

The things I learn here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #18)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 05:42 PM

21. That's not what I said

I said it was less significant and smaller in scale than the ones listed by name. Not that it wasn't significant. You could try learning to read for starters.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #21)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 05:59 PM

23. A United States battleship attacked in the Persian Gulf

Crew dead, months on the sidelines being repaired...

You have a strange scale for significance.

And yet this one also didn't involve airplanes. Which Al Qaeda attack, small or large, involved airplanes?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #23)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 06:09 PM

24. Why do you think the FBI wanted poster fails to mention 9/11 at all?

9/11 was only the greatest terrorist attack in history by far.

but according to you it wasn't significant enough to be mentioned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #24)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 06:43 PM

26. It doesn't mention a lot of Al Qaeda attacks.

It does mention the one they had indicted him for. That indictment had happened before the 9/11 attacks and it was sufficient to arrest or request extradition for bin Laden. Since they already had the power to arrest him, they didn't need to waste time updating a poster when they could be doing other work trying to catch him.

Which Al Qaeda attacks, small or large, involved airplanes, gyroscope? A lot? Or just one?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #26)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 06:57 PM

28. Was bin Laden ever indicted for 9/11?

if he was your argument would make more sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #28)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 07:04 PM

30. Your answer inside. Which Al Qaeda attacks, small or large, involved airplanes, gyroscope?

Bin Laden didn't need to be indicted for 9/11 in order for the FBI to have the power to arrest him. Once arrested, he would have been indicted on a whole host of charges, including the 9/11 attacks.

Please answer my question. I'm answering yours.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #30)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 07:41 PM

33. Did the FBI say that?

that they were going to indict bin laden for 9/11 after arresting him?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #33)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 12:17 AM

41. Your answer inside. You didn't answer mine. Which AQ attacks, small or great, involved airplanes?

http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2011/may/binladen_050211/binladen_050211

The mastermind of the attacks on September 11, 2001 that killed thousands of innocent men, women, and children has been killed.

...Well before the events of 9/11, bin Laden had openly declared war on the U.S. and was committed to killing innocents. His al Qaeda group was responsible for the 1998 bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya. The attacks killed over 200 people. Bin Laden was indicted for his role in planning the attacks and added to the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list in 1999.

Intelligence agencies quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by bin Laden’s terrorist organization, and in October 2001, his name was added to the U.S. Department of State’s Most Wanted Terrorists List.


From this press release on the death of Bin Laden, it is clear that the FBI considered him a person of interest in the 9/11 attacks. Indeed, he had already been indicted for the embassy bombings in 2001, but the FBI added him to the Top Ten list in October 2001, a response to the 9/11 attacks.

You should drop your silly claims about the wanted poster. The FBI knew bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 and would have charged him with that crime had he been in their custody.

Now please do answer my question. I continue to answer yours, but you keep avoiding mine.

Which Al Qaeda attacks, small or large, involved airplanes?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #41)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 09:59 AM

46. I agree that gyroscope should step up and answer questions

There's one confusing thing about your post:

Indeed, he had already been indicted for the embassy bombings in 2001, but the FBI added him to the Top Ten list in October 2001, a response to the 9/11 attacks.


The way the FBI describes this (following your link), the FBI runs the "Top Ten Most Wanted" list, and the State Department controls the "Most Wanted Terrorists" list -- which, I'm thinking not coincidentally, was created in October 2001. According to Wikipedia, originally there were 22 Most Wanted Terrorists.

However, the Most Wanted Terrorists list appears on the FBI website. It may be the State Department that adds names to the list (the FBI seems to say so, at least), but it's the FBI that has the authority to apprehend people.

I also note that the the Most Wanted Terrorists list says this:

The alleged terrorists on this list have been indicted by sitting Federal Grand Juries in various jurisdictions in the United States for the crimes reflected on their wanted posters. Evidence was gathered and presented to the Grand Juries, which led to their being charged. The indictments currently listed on the posters allow them to be arrested and brought to justice. Future indictments may be handed down as various investigations proceed in connection to other terrorist incidents, for example, the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.


Obviously there will be no future indictments of Osama bin Laden in connection with the 9/11 attacks. But I don't understand what gyroscope is confused about here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnTheOtherHand (Reply #46)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 12:07 PM

47. Ah, yes, you've got it AND the quote I was looking for originally, the "for example" one.

If gyroscope ever returns to continue this conversation, we'll see if we can narrow down the head of his confusion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #41)

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 07:20 PM

56. Why didn't the FBI indict bin laden?

if they had any evidence on him, bin Laden would have been indicted for the murder of 3000 Americans.

did the FBI not think such a crime was serious enough to warrant a formal indictment?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #56)

Sun Jan 22, 2012, 12:18 AM

58. I have answered that question already. You have not answered mine.

Which Al Qaeda attack, small or large, involved airplanes?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #58)

Sun Jan 22, 2012, 09:17 PM

64. Irrelevant to the discussion

1) the wanted poster mentions nothing about 9/11

2) the FBI has never indicted bin laden for 9/11

why is that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #64)

Sun Jan 22, 2012, 09:51 PM

67. I see.

Since you will not answer questions I ask, and since you will not accept the answers I give to your questions, but instead keep asking your questions again and again, this is not actually a discussion. It's an silly game you're playing, and I decline to participate any longer.

If you decide to ever start having a discussion, you'll answer my question which actually has direct relevance to what we are talking about. Because since there is only one Al Qaeda attack involving airplanes, the 9/11 attack, the airline industry rewards on the bin Laden page are a reference to them. You've already been shown other quotes from the FBI that they were ready to indict him on 9/11 charges should he ever be arrested, that they possessed enough power to arrest or extradite him on the embassy charges, and that the Top Ten Terrorists list was put together with him at the top in direct response to the 9/11 attack.

So when you're ready to have a discussion instead of this game you're playing, I'll be right here to have a discussion with you. Until then, you'll excuse me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #56)

Sun Jan 22, 2012, 09:03 AM

60. and here's another question: why do you think you know this?

if they had any evidence on him, bin Laden would have been indicted for the murder of 3000 Americans.


Really? Where did you demonstrate that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnTheOtherHand (Reply #60)

Sun Jan 22, 2012, 09:20 PM

65. So there would be no confusion about who was responsible

for the biggest mass murder in US history?

wouldn't the FBI want to eliminate any question about who they were after for 9/11?
by listing 9/11 specifically on the wanted poster?

just common sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #65)

Sun Jan 22, 2012, 09:57 PM

68. in other words, you've got nothing

Whose "confusion" would have been resolved if bin Laden had been indicted for 9/11? Are you going to try to tell us that the Truth Movement would be convinced?! That just isn't plausible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #4)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 03:01 PM

9. "a new independent investigation to answer" what question?

Whether or not there were any hijackers? So you doubt your own OP?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #9)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 03:32 PM

10. I doubt the official story

so does Bush's own head of counterterrorism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #10)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 03:36 PM

11. You think Clarke doubts ...

... there were hijackers?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #11)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 04:29 PM

14. I don't presume to know what he thinks in that regard

but that's not what the article is about.

the question is, why did the CIA fail to notify Clarke and the FBI?
why were two known members of al-qaeda allowed freely into the country to roam around and do as they please? lets try to answer that question first because that's what the OP is about.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #14)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 04:38 PM

15. Why is that an issue ...

... if they weren't hijackers?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #15)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 04:47 PM

16. Who said they weren't?

am I missing something?

in my personal opinion, they were either hijackers or patsies. or both.

either way it matters for a new investigation because the 9/11 commission failed to answer anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #16)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 05:37 PM

19. You were...

... trying to convince us that no plane crashed in Pennsylvania or into the Pentagon. Why would there be "either hijackers or patsies. or both" if there were no planes?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #19)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 05:43 PM

22. I never claimed no plane crashed into the Pentagon

please learn how to read.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #22)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 06:34 PM

25. your claim

"I don't know what hit the Pentagon"
"apparently some aircraft of some kind did hit the Pentagon because the flight data recorder was recovered."
"but what kind of aircraft is the question."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11352062#post14

very confusing.
maybe you could be more clear.
tell us your hypothesis please to avoid future misunderstandings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #25)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 06:49 PM

27. What part do you not understand?

I'm not here to teach anyone the English language. nor do I pretend to know exactly what struck the Pentagon without any clear evidence. if we had a real investigation we could find that out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #27)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 06:59 PM

29. so you have no idea what struck the pentagon?

none whatsoever?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #27)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 07:08 PM

31. do you not consider this clear evidence?

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/American_Airlines_Flight_77_Crash_Evidence

If not, why?

And thanks I understand English perfectly and I understand you don't like answering any questions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #31)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 07:35 PM

32. From your link

some witnesses say it was a large airliner, others say it was a small aircraft or commuter aircraft.
so which is it? other witnesses at the scene mention the lack of debris, which also indicates it could have been a smaller aircraft. this is why a thorough investigation is needed to straighten things out.

the majority of witnesses do however indicate a large airliner, and that's fine if that's what it turns out to be. but if you're going to rely on witnesses then you can't choose to hold up the ones who support your story while ignoring for example hundreds of others at the World Trade Center who say they heard or witnessed explosions at the WTC.

which is exactly what the 9/11 commission did. they simply ignored the witnesses. the lead investigator for NIST has the audacity to claim there were no witnesses to any explosions at the WTC at all when in fact there are hundreds. this guy is a bald-faced liar and is a prime example of why the official story has no credibility whatsoever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #32)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 08:40 PM

34. We'd know it was AA77 ...

... even if there weren't any witnesses.

And you're not telling the truth about Dr. Sunder. What he said was, there were no videos or witnesses to any explosion large enough to bring down the buildings, and he is correct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #34)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 09:22 PM

37. How does Sunder know how large the explosions were?

was he there? or is he a psychic?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #37)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 10:26 PM

40. His comment was based on how large the explosion would need to be

... to bring down just the one critical column in WTC 7: 120 to 130 decibels a half-mile away. EVERY witness would have an unmistakeable memory of an explosion that large, and every video would have also captured it.

It didn't happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #40)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 01:17 AM

43. You guys don't read the paper do you?

No explosions?

Where have you and Sunder been hiding out all this time? Dick Cheney's bunker?




City to Release Thousands of Oral Histories of 9/11 Today

By JIM DWYER
Published: August 12, 2005

A rich vein of city records from Sept. 11, including more than 12,000 pages of oral histories rendered in the voices of 503 firefighters, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians, will be made public today.

...The New York Times sought the records under the freedom of information law in February 2002, but the Bloomberg administration refused to make them public and the newspaper sued the city. Earlier this year, the Court of Appeals, New York's highest court, ordered the city to release most, but not all, of the records.

-----------------------------

a few excerpts from first responder oral histories.



Rich Banaciski -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
We were there I don't know, maybe 10, 15 minutes and then I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.
Interview, 12/06/01, New York Times

Brian Becker -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
So I think that the building was really kind of starting to melt. We were -- like, the melt down was beginning. The collapse hadn't begun, but it was not a fire any more up there. It was like -- it was like that -- like smoke explosion on a tremendous scale going on up there.
Interview, 10/09/01, New York Times

Greg Brady -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.)
We were standing underneath and Captain Stone was speaking again. We heard -- I heard 3 loud explosions. I look up and the north tower is coming down now, 1 World Trade Center.
...
We were standing in a circle in the middle of West Street. They were talking about what was going on. At that time, when I heard the 3 loud explosions, I started running west on Vesey Street towards the water. At that time, I couldn't run fast enough. The debris caught up with me, knocked my helmet off.
Interview, , New York Times

Timothy Burke -- Firefigter (F.D.N.Y.)
Then the building popped, lower than the fire, which I learned was I guess, the aviation fuel fell into the pit, and whatever floor it fell on heated up really bad and that's why it popped at that floor. That's the rumor I heard. But it seemed like I was going oh, my god, there is a secondary device because the way the building popped. I thought it was an explosion.
Interview, 01/22/02, New York Times

Ed Cachia -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit, because we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down. With that everybody was just stunned for a second or two, looking at the tower coming down.
Interview, 12/06/05, New York Times

Frank Campagna -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
There was nobody in the intersection, nobody in the streets in general, everyone just saying come on, keeping coming, keep coming. That's when went. I looked back. You see three explosions and then the whole thing coming down. I turned my head and everybody was scattering. From there I don't know who was who. I don't even know where my guys went. None of us knew where each other were at at that point in time.
Interview, 12/04/01, New York Times

Craig Carlsen -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit.
...
You did hear the explosions . Of course after the first one -- the first one was pretty much looking at in like in awe. You didn't realize that this was really happening because you kind of just stood there and you didn't react as fast as you thought you were going to. The second one coming down, you knew the explosions. Now you're very familiar with it.
Interview, 01/25/02, New York Times

Jason Charles -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.)
I grabbed her and the Lieutenant picked her up by the legs and we start walking over slowly to the curb, and then I heard an explosion from up, from up above, and I froze and I was like, oh, s___, I'm dead because I thought the debris was going to hit me in the head and that was it.
Then everybody stops and looks at the building and they they take off. The Lieutenant dropped her legs and ran. The triage center, everybody who was sitting there hurt and, oh, you know, help me, they got up and and everybody together got up and ran. I looked at them like why are they running? I look over my shoulder and I says, oh, s___, and then I turned around and looked up and that's when I saw the tower coming down.
...
North Tower:
We start walking back there and then I heard a ground level explosion and I'm like holy s___, and then you heard that twisting metal wreckage again. Then I said s___ and everybody started running and I started running behind them, and we get to the door.
Interview, 01/23/02, New York Times

Frank Cruthers -- Chief (F.D.N.Y.)
And while I was still in that immediate area, the south tower, 2 World Trade Center, there was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse.
Interview, 10/31/01, New York Times

James Curran -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
A guy started scremaing to run. When I got underneath the north bridge I looked back and you heard it, I heard like every floor went chu-chu-chu. Looked back and from the pressure everything was getting blown out of the floors before it actually collapsed.
Interview, 12/30/01, New York Times

Kevin Darnowski -- Paramedic (E.M.S.)
I started walking back up towards Vesey Street. I heard three explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and tower two started to come down.
Interview, 11/09/01, New York Times

Dominick Derubbio -- Battalion Chief (F.D.N.Y.)
After a while we were looking up at the tower, and all of a sudden someone said it's starting to come down.
...
This would be the first one.
...
This one here. It was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion, but I guess it was just the floors starting to pancake one on top of the other.
Interview, 10/12/01, New York Times

Karin Deshore -- Captain (E.M.S.)
Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building.
Interview, 11/07/01, New York Times

Brian Dixon -- Battalion Chief (F.D.N.Y.)
I was watching the fire, watching the people jump and hearing a noise and looking up and seeing -- it actually looked -- the lowest floor of fire in the south tower actually looked like someone had planted explosives around it because the whole bottom I could see -- I could see two sides of it and the other side -- it just looked like that floor blew out. I looked up and you could actually see everything blew out on the one floor. I thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up there, it blew out. Then I guess in some sense of time we looked at it and realized, no, actually it just collapsed. That's what blew out the windows, not that there was an explosion there but that windows blew out. The realization hit that it's going to fall down, the top's coming off. I was still thinking -- there was never a thought that this whole thing is coming down. I thought that that blew out and stuff is starting to fly down. The top is going to topple off there.
Interview, 10/25/01, New York Times

Michael Donovan -- Captain (F.D.N.Y.)
Anyway, with that I was listening, and there was an incredibly loud rumbling. I never got to look up. People started running for the entrances to the parking garages. They started running for the entrances. I started running without ever looking up. The roar became tremendous. I fell on the way to the parking garages. Debris was starting to fall all around me. I got up, I got into the parking garages, was knocked down by the percussion. I thought there had been an explosion or a bomb that they had blown up there. The Vista International Hotel was my first impression, that they had blown it up. I never got to see the World Trade Center coming down.
Interview, 11/09/01, New York Times

James Drury -- Assistant Commissioner (F.D.N.Y.)
We were in the process of getting some rigs moved when I turned, as I heard a tremendous roar, explosion, and saw that the first of the two towers was starting to come down.
...
When the dust started to settle, I headed back down towards the World Trade Center and I guess I came close to arriving at the corner of Vesey and West again where we started to hear the second roar. That was the north tower now coming down. I should say that people in the street and myself included thought that the roar was so loud that the explosive - bombs were going off inside the building. Obviously we were later proved wrong.
...
The sight of the jumpers was horrible and the turning around and seeing that first tower come down was unbelieveable. The sound it made. As I said I thought the terrorists planted explosives somewhere in the building. That's how loud it was, crackling explosive, a wall. That's about it. Any questions?
Interview, 10/16/01, New York Times

Thomas Fitzpatrick -- Deputy Commissioner for Administration (F.D.N.Y.)
We looked up at the building straight up, we were that close. All we saw was a puff of smoke coming from about 2 thirds of the way up. Some people thought it was an explosion. I don't think I remember that. I remember seeing it, it looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the building. I assume now that that was either windows starting to collapse like tinsel or something. Then the building started to come down. My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions on TV. I would have to say for three or four seconds anyway, maybe longer. I was just watching. It was interesting to watch, but the thing that woke everybody up was the cloud of black material. It reminded me of the 10 commandments when the green clouds come down on the street. The black cloud was coming down faster than the building, so whatever was coming down was going to hit the street and it was pretty far out. You knew it wasn't coming right down. Judging from where people were jumping before that, this cloud was much further.
Interview, 10/16/01, New York Times

Gary Gates -- Lieutenant (F.D.N.Y.)
I looked up, and the building exploded, the building that we were very close to, which was one tower. The whole top came off like a volcano.
...
So now both towers have been hit by a plane. The north tower was burning. So the explosion, what I realized later, had to be the start of the collapse. It was the way the building appeared to blowout from both sides. I'm looking at the face of it, and all we see is the two sides of the building just blowing out and coming apart like this, as I said, like the top of a volcano.
Interview, 10/12/01, New York Times

Kevin Gorman -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
North Tower:
John Malley, who was right behind me, I turned around for him, because he was doing something, either putting his coat on or something, and as I was looking at him I heard the explosion, looked up, and saw like three floors explode, saw the antenna coming down, and turned around and ran north.
Interview, 01/09/02, New York Times

Stephen Gregory -- Assistant Commissioner (F.D.N.Y.)
We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.
...
the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw.
...
He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you see flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them too.
...
I know about the explosion on the upper floors. This was like at eye level. I didn't have to go like this. Because I was looking this way. I'm not going to say it was on the first floor or the second floor, but somewhere in that area I saw to me what appeared to be flashes.
Interview, 10/03/01, New York Times

Gregg Hansson -- Lieutenant (F.D.N.Y.)
That's basically where we were. Then a large explosion took place. In my estimation that was the tower coming down, but at that time I did not know what that was. I thought some type of bomb had gone off. I was, I believe, ahead of the rest of the firefighters and officers there. I made it to the corner, and I took about four running steps this way when you could feel the rush of the wind coming at you. I believed that that was a huge fireball coming at the time.
Interview, 10/09/01, New York Times

Timothy Julian -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
We came out from 90 West, made a left, headed east, and right when we got to the corner of Washington and Albany, that's when I heard the building collapse.
First I thought it was an explosion. I thought maybe there was bomb on the plane, but delayed type of thing, you know secondary device.
...
You know, and I just heard like an explosion and then cracking type of noise, and then it sounded like a freight train, rumbling and picking up speed, and I remember I looked up, and I saw it coming down.
Interview, 12/26/01, New York Times

Art Lakiotes -- Chief (F.D.N.Y.)
Tower one now comes down. Same thing but this time some of us take off straight down West Street, because we realized later on, subconsciously we wanted to be near buildings. We all thought it was secondary explosives or more planes or whatever.
Interview, 12/03/01, New York Times

John Malley -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
We were walking into darkness. As we walked through those revolving doors, that's when we felt the rumble. I felt the rumbling, and then I felt the force coming at me. I was like, what the hell is that? In my mind it was a bomb going off. The pressure got so great, I stepped back behind the columns separating the revolving doors. Then the force just blew past me. It blew past me it seemed for a long time. In my mind I was saying what the hell is this and when is it going to stop? Then it finally stopped, that pressure which I thought was a concussion of an explosion. It turns out it was the down pressure wind of the floors collapsing on top of each other. At that point everything went black, and then the collapse came. It just rained on top of us. Everything came. It rained debris forever.
Interview, 12/12/01, New York Times

Julio Marrero -- E.M.T. (F.D.N.Y.)
I was screaming from the top of my lungs, and I must have been about ten feet away from her and she couldn't even hear me, because the building was so loud, the explosion, that she couldn't even hear me. I just saw everybody running; and she saw us running, and she took off behind us.
Interview, 10/25/01, New York Times

Orlando Martinez -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.)
There was an explosion and after we started running, I was able to make it to Chambers and West, where I only saw one EMT, EMT Vega. She is new here. She was the only EMT I saw from the station and with all the cops and everybody else running, rescue workers. I grabbed her and I said just stay with me. We will try to get out of here.
Interview, 11/01/01, New York Times

Linda McCarthy -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.)
So when that one went down. I thought the plane was exploding, or another plane hit. I had no idea it was coming down. But I couldn't see it gone, because I couldn't see it really in the first place with all the smoke.
Interview, 11/28/01, New York Times

James McKinley -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.)
After that I heard this huge explosion, I thought it was a boiler exploding or something. Next thing you know this huge cloud of smoke is coming at us, so we're running. Everyone is, firemen, PD, everyone is running away from the World Trade Center, up Vessey Street. This is North End, we was running around Vessey and around North end to get away from the first smoke.
Interview, 10/12/01, New York Times

Joseph Meola -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
As we are looking up at the building, what I saw was, it looked like the building was blowing out on all four sides. We actually heard the pops. Didn't realize it was the falling -- you know, you heard the pops of the building. You thought it was just blowing out.
Interview, 12/11/01, New York Times

Keith Murphy -- (F.D.N.Y.) []
I was standing kind of on the edge of where our elevator bank met the big elevator bank. That was when the - I determined that's when the north tower collapses. We are standing there and the first thing that happened, which I still think is strange to me, the lights went out. Completely pitch black. Since we are in that core little area of the building, there is no natural light. No nothing, I didn't see a thing.
I had heard right before the lights went out, I had heard a distant boom boom boom, sounded like three explosions. I don't know what it was. At the time, I would have said they sounded like bombs, but it was boom boom boom and then the lights all go out. I hear someone say oh, s___, that was just for the lights out. I would say about 3, 4 seconds, all of a sudden this tremendous roar. It sounded like being in a tunnel with the train coming at you.
Interview, 12/05/01, New York Times

Kevin Murray -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
When the tower started -- there was a big explosion that I heard and someone screamed that it was coming down and I looked away and I saw all the windows domino -- you know, dominoeing up and then come down. We were right in front of 6, so we started running and how are you going to outrun the World Trade Center? So we threw our tools and I dove under a rig.
Interview, 10/09/01, New York Times

Janice Olszewski -- Captain (E.M.S.)
I thought more could be happening down there. I didn't know if it was an explosion. I didn't know it was a collapse at that point. I thought it was an explosion or a secondary device, a bomb, the jet -- plane exploding, whatever.
Interview, 11/07/01, New York Times

Juan Rios -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.)
I was in the back waiting, you know, so we could wait for patients and I was hooking up the regulator to the O-2, when I hear people screaming and a loud explosion, and I heard like "sssssssss..." the dust like "sssssssss..." So I come out of the bus, and I look and I see a big cloud of dust and debris coming from the glass...
Interview, 10/10/01, New York Times

Michael Ober -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.)
Then we heard a rumble, some twisting metal, we looked up in the air, and to be totally honest, at first, I don't know exactly -- but it looked to me just like an explosion. It didn't look like the building was coming down, it looked like just one floor had blown completely outside of it. I was sitting there looking at it. I just never thought they would ever come down, so I didn't think they were coming down. I just froze and stood there looking at it.
Interview, 10/16/01, New York Times

Angel Rivera -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
Mike Mullan walked one flight up, and then the most horrendous thing happened. That's when hell came down. It was like a huge, enormous explosion. I still can hear it. Everything shook. Everything went black. The wind rushed, very slowly , all the dust, all the -- and everything went dark.
Interview, 01/22/02, New York Times

Daniel Rivera -- Paramedic (E.M.S.)
Then that's when -- I kept on walking close to the south tower, and that's when that building collapsed.
...
It was a frigging noise. At first I thought it was -- do you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear "Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop"? That's exactly what -- because I thought it was that. When I heard that frigging noise, that's when I saw the building coming down.
Interview, 10/10/01, New York Times

Kennith Rogers -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
Meanwhile we were standing there with about five companies and we were just waiting for our assignment and then there was an explosion in the south tower, which, according to this map, this exposure just blew out the flames. A lot of guys left at that point. I kept watching. Floor after floor after floor. One floor under another after another and when it hit about the fifth floor, I figured it was a bomb, because it looked like a synchronized deliberate kind of thing. I was there in '93.
Interview, 12/10/01, New York Times

Patrick Scaringello -- Lieutenant (E.M.S.)
I started to treat patients on my own when I heard the explosion from up above. I looked up, I saw smoke and flame and then I saw the top tower tilt, start to twist and lean.
...
I was assisting in pulling more people out from debris, when I heard the second tower explode. When I tried to evacuate the area, by running up Fulton, got halfway up.
Interview, 10/10/01, New York Times

Mark Steffens -- Division Chief (E.M.S.)
Then there was another it sounded like an explosion and heavy white powder, papers, flying everywhere. We sat put there for a few minutes. It kind of dissipated.
...
That's when we heard this massive explosion and I saw this thing rolling towards us. It looked like a fireball and then thick, thick black smoke.
Interview, 10/03/01, New York Times

John Sudnik -- Battalion Chief (F.D.N.Y.)
The best I can remember, we were just operating there, trying to help out and do the best we could. Then we heard a loud explosion or what sounded like a loud explosion and looked up and I saw tower two start coming down. Crazy.
Interview, 11/07/01, New York Times

Neil Sweeting -- Paramedic (E.M.S.)
You heard a big boom, it was quiet for about ten seconds. Then you could hear another one. Now I realize it was the floors starting to stack on top of each other as they were falling. It was spaced apart in the beginning, but then it got to just a tremendous roar and a rumble that I will never forget.
Interview, 11/01/01, New York Times

Jay Swithers -- Captain (E.M.S.)
At that point I looked back and most of the people who were triaged in that area with the triage tags on them got up and ran. I took a quick glance at the building and while I didn't see it falling, I saw a large section of it blasting out, which led me to believe it was just an explosion. I thought it was a secondary device, but I knew that we had to go.
...
Within a few moments, I regrouped with Bruce Medjuck and I asked him to tell them on the radio to send us MTA buses to get people out. That didn't happen. But one thing that did happen was an ambulance pulled up which was very clean. So I assumed that the vehicle had not been in the - what I thought was an explosion at the time, but was the first collapse.
Interview, 10/30/01, New York Times

David Timothy -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.)
The next thing I knew, you started hearing more explosions. I guess this is when the second tower started coming down.
Interview, 10/25/01, New York Times

Albert Turi -- Deputy Assistant Chief (F.D.N.Y.)
The next thing I heard was Pete say what the f___ is this? And as my eyes traveled up the building, and I was looking at the south tower, somewhere about halfway up, my initial reaction was there was a secondary explosion, and the entire floor area, a ring right around the building blew out. I later realized that the building had started to collapse already and this was the air being compressed and that is the floor that let go.
Interview, 10/23/01, New York Times

Thomas Turilli -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
The door closed, they went up, and it just seemed a couple of seconds and all of a sudden you just heard it, it almost actually that day sounded like bombs going off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or eight, and then just a huge wind gust just came and my officer just actually took all of us and just threw us down on the ground and kind of just jumped on top of us, laid on top of us.
...
At that point were were kind of standing on the street and I looked to my left and actually I noticed the tower was down. I didn't even know that it was when we were in there. It just seemed like a huge explosion.
Interview, 01/17/02, New York Times

Stephen Viola -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
Our guy went in with 13 truck, and he was coming down with the guy from 13 truck to bring the elevator to us, and when he was either going up or coming down the elevator, that's when the south tower collapsed, and it sounded like a bunch of explosions. You heard like loud booms, but I guess it was all just stuff coming down, and then we got covered with rubble and dust, and I thought we'd actually fallen through the floor into like the PATH tubes, because it was so dark you couldn't see anything, and from there it was a little hazy from there on.
Interview, 01/10/02, New York Times

William Wall -- Lieutenant (F.D.N.Y.)
At that time, we heard an explosion. We looked up and the building was coming down right on top of us, so we ran up West Street. We ran a little bit and then we were overtaken by the cloud and we hid behind a white Suburban.
...
Oh, when we came out of the building and we were walking across West Street when we first got out of the building, we're walking across the street and all you heard was like bombs going off above your head. You couldn't see it. It was just cloudy. And we found out later it was the military jets. That was an eerie sound. You couldn't see it and all you heard was like a "boom" and it just kept going. We couldn't see 50 feet above our head because of the dust. So we didn't know if it was bombs going off or whatever, but we didn't want to stay there.
Interview, 12/10/01, New York Times

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #43)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 03:29 AM

44. You are a prime example...

Last edited Fri Jan 20, 2012, 04:08 AM - Edit history (1)

... of why "truther" should always be put in quotes. As was JUST pointed out to you, Sunder did not say there were "no explosions."

Here's what you said about Sunder:

> the lead investigator for NIST has the audacity to claim there were no witnesses to any explosions at the WTC at all when in fact there are hundreds. this guy is a bald-faced liar and is a prime example of why the official story has no credibility whatsoever.


Here is what Sunder actually said, talking about WTC7:

"... and our analyses show that even with the smallest explosive charge that was capable of bringing down the critical column in the building, had it occurred, we would have seen sound levels of 120 to 130 decibels about a half a mile away. That would have been an incredibly loud sound, and that sound was not picked up by any of the videos or witnesses that we have talked to."



And then you attempt to defend your dishonest "bald-faced liar" accusation by pasting statements from a bunch of people of who heard all sorts of "explosions" in the towers? Really?

EDIT: The video I linked to is another prime example of why "truther" should always be put in quotes: It attempts to refute what Sunder said with one video that has a rumbling sound that doesn't sound anything like shaped demolition charges (and with no indication of why we should think that's WTC7 collapsing anyway), and another video which (as we discussed elsewhere) was shot around 10:30 in the morning (and has a dubious sound track anyway).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #44)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 12:38 PM

48. "The explosions weren't loud enough"



Truly hilarious.


you guys really ought to be doing stand-up comedy.
that's the best punchline I've heard in years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #48)

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 11:03 AM

49. which raises the question: where have you been?

Sunder didn't just say "the explosions weren't loud enough." He made a specific, quantitative argument about how loud the explosions should have been.

You could have engaged that argument, but instead you misrepresented it as a completely different argument -- and called him a "bald-faced liar" based on your misrepresentation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnTheOtherHand (Reply #49)

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 03:18 PM

50. Is there such a thing as a silent explosion?

let's exercise common sense.

if the explosions were not very loud (as if there were any other kind), how could they be clearly heard by hundreds if not thousands of witnesses in the area?

witnesses commonly used terms such as 'big', 'loud', 'huge', 'tremendous', 'enormous' to describe the explosions they heard. what do you that means? Sunder asserts if the explosions were loud, they would have been heard by many witnesses. but the oral histories of hundreds of witnesses that I posted who have indeed described such explosions proves him wrong.

in short, Sunder is a liar and a clown. either that or he needs to get his hearing checked if he doesn't know what an explosion sounds like.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #50)

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 03:43 PM

51. why do you continue to misrepresent what we all can read?

Sunder asserts if the explosions were loud, they would have been heard by many witnesses.


No, he doesn't. Can you really not read what he actually said, and respond to that?

Do you have any evidence of sound levels of 120-130 decibels half a mile away?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnTheOtherHand (Reply #51)

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 04:17 PM

52. According to Sunder

there were no witnesses to any explosions.

He's a bald-faced liar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #52)

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 04:28 PM

53. Is English not your primary language?

You certainly seem to have a hard time understanding it.
Please show us where Sunder says "there were no witnesses to any explosions."
Take your time, please.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #53)

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 04:47 PM

54. Sunder is a clown who belongs in a circus act.

again I ask you, how does Sunder know the explosions were not 120 decibels? was he there? is he a psychic? did he measure them?

Sunder says if they were that loud, they would have been heard by many witnesses. He goes on to say there are 'no witnesses, no videos' to such explosions.

He's a bald-faced liar because there were in fact hundreds of witnesses. The witnesses didn't describe them as quiet explosions. They described them as 'huge,' 'loud,' 'tremendous,' 'enormous,' etc. What do you think those words mean?

Since you're having so much difficulty with these common everyday English words I suggest you use a dictionary. Is Sunder from India? Apparently English isn't his first language either.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #54)

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 05:14 PM

55. No difficluties with English here.

Thanks for your concern.
You may want to take this class.
http://www.superteacherworksheets.com/1st-comprehension.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #55)

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 09:40 PM

57. Comedy gold

according to Sunder, the explosions were silent which is why no one could hear them on 9/11.

stealthy explosions? that's a good one!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #57)

Sun Jan 22, 2012, 01:47 AM

59. "according to Sunder, the explosions were silent which is why no one could hear them on 9/11."

Wow. Sunder says nothing of the sort.
for your understanding of the English language.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #59)

Sun Jan 22, 2012, 09:30 AM

61. speaking of which

I still don't think gyroscope has caught on that Sunder was talking about WTC 7, although William Seger pointed it out at least twice. So if g ever deigns to address what Sunder actually said, most of this eyewitness testimony will be out the window as simply irrelevant.

Amidst all the unsupported personal attacks on Sunder and the weird speculations about why the FBI didn't indict bin Laden for 9/11 (as if the FBI ever indicts anyone), one might easily forget that this thread started out being about Richard Clarke's concerns about the CIA. Nominally, at least.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnTheOtherHand (Reply #61)

Sun Jan 22, 2012, 12:14 PM

62. good point on how the "discussion" started

but muddying the waters is the first weapon in any good truthers arsenal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #59)

Sun Jan 22, 2012, 09:12 PM

63. So what is Sunder saying?

maybe I just don't understand his strange broken English. would you care to translate it for me?

So Sunder is saying there were explosions? but nobody heard them?

Is that the idea now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #63)

Sun Jan 22, 2012, 09:47 PM

66. can you show us what you don't understand?

Because the meanings you come up with bear little to no relationship to his words. Maybe if you started with his words, things would go better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #32)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 08:47 PM

36. "some witnesses say it was a large airliner"

Incorrect.
Not "some", but the vast majority. In fact, only one or two say it may have been smaller.
And quite a few not only say a "commercial airliner" but even identify it as an "American Airlines jet".
So, yes, when you have dozens say one thing(that matches the evidence) and a handful say different things, then yes, I will dismiss the handful.
Listen, I don't have time to teach you how to read, but I would hope you could do better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #22)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 08:46 PM

35. You did claim it couldn't be AA77

Are you now saying it's possible that it was some other hijacked plane?

It appears that you are prepared to give any and all stories credibility except the mythical "official story" and yet you don't seem to have rational reasons for sorting out even the most basic facts about what happened that day. With an epistemology that crippled, it's hard to take your incredulity of the mythical "official story" seriously.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #35)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 09:24 PM

38. Where did I say that?

where did I say it couldn't be AA77? point out the post where I said that.

if you can't then you're a liar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #38)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 09:53 PM

39. "But a look at the flight data recorder information provided by the NTSB..."

... tells us something else entirely."

"Yes, the official Pentagon story is pure bunkum."

"apparently some aircraft of some kind did hit the Pentagon because the flight data recorder was recovered. but what kind of aircraft is the question."

"That appears to be the case" in response to the question, "the government faked a plane hitting the pentagon and then released a video showing that they faked a plane hitting the pentagon. Is that how you see it?"

"the aircraft is too high in the air to contact the poles."

"the official story cannot be possible."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #39)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 12:56 AM

42. Again

where did I say AA77 was not possible? I simply disputed the route the aircraft took.

I said the official story of the aircraft taking the southern route was not possible based on the FDR data. Because as the FDR sows the aircraft approached the Pentagon north of the gas station.

is English your second language by any chance? you might consider taking an ESL course because I'm tired of repeating myself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #42)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 03:36 AM

45. Clearly, that is NOT "simply" what you did in the quotes I posted

... and thanks for reminding me that you have yet to respond to the FACT that the FDR data DOES show the path over the light poles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #14)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 05:41 PM

20. I thought that Clarke was notified

I don't know whether he was allowed to anything about it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread