Reply #24: I thought the video was referring to the FDNY interviews.

[Make7]

I thought the video was referring to the FDNY interviews published by the NY Times based on the text description that accompanied it on YouTube.

Within a month of 9/11, NYC fire commissioner Thomas Von Essen, a 30-year NYFD vet, set up interviews with fire, port authority police and EMT first responders to record their initial impressions of what they experienced on Sept 11.

The stories of 503 men and women ran to 12,000 pages. Graeme MacQueen, a recently retired religious studies professor, read them all. In addition to the heartrending nature of many of the stories, the consistent theme was of hearing, feeling and seeing explosions, a controlled demolition. Failure to officially acknowledge this evidence is further proof of an inside job. MacQueen (McMaster University, Ontario, Canada) narrowed down the testimony of 118 first responders as especially court-worthy testimony. But he notes the entire testimony was excluded by the 9/11 Commission...

From your previous posts I thought you were also referring to the FDNY interviews that were published by the New York Times.

nebula wrote:

How was the New York Times able to publish all 12,000 pages of these witness interviews, but the Commission couldn't be bothered with them?

nebula wrote:

Barred testimony released to public in August 2005--all 12,000 pages were published by the New York Times.

For some reason I thought the objection was that the testimony in the internal FDNY interviews was "barred" by the 9/11 Commission. So I replied merely to point out that the Commission had indeed reviewed that testimony.

Forgive me for saying so, but if the internal FDNY interviews were not what was being discussed, your prior posts in this thread make very little sense.

- Make7