General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

cchris874
CNN
comments

Comments by "cchris874" (@cchris874) on "Ventura's take on 9/11: 'They wanted it to happen'" video.

Or when you consider analogous cases, as when FOX news and others stated Pope John Paul died the day before he died.
2
You are not an authority on the physics of building collapses, so don't pretend to be one. Thanks.
2
If you checked the evidence yourself, you would know that at about 2:30pm that day, chief Nigro of the NYFD ordered the building be emptied due to concerns it would collapse. It was therefore expected hours beforehand. No mental effort should be required to see how a mundane error probably happened. Fox news back in 2005 reported the death of John Paul II the day before it happened. This is mundane reality. Media are always getting things wrong, especially in the chaos of the moment. I can give you over 20 firefighter quotes confirming this, and many others stating the building was fully engulfed in fire. There's also a video of the south facade with smoke pouring out, completely obscuring the south side. Strictly taboo at most truth sites.
2
PSA flight 1771: no tail no wings no engines: must have been a fake.
2
The Tetley in this case: mundane media mistake since they were told hours before the collapse was expected. Nothing terribly hot here.
2
@1wannabee1 Also correctamundo: a mundane media mistake of no significance.
1
@1wannabee1 OK, well let me explain exactly what I mean. Especially when a news story is first developing, the media as we all should know, is highly prone to inaccurate reporting. Nothing new, right? I could make, and so could you, an endless list of these errors. Is this level of mistake unusual? Relatively speaking, yes. But hardly unique. In 2005, for example, Fox News reported the death of Pope John Paul II the day before he actually died. Does this indicate a cover-up, or something suspicious? Or is it more likely that since his death was highly expected, a mundane type of mistake was made: someone misread a report as stating he had already died? You tell me. Now with building 7, we have essentially the same thing. A highly expected event. If you doubt this, you aren't up to date on the evidence. At about 2:30 that afternoon, the decision was made by chief Nigro to get everyone away because they feared a collapse. I can give over a dozen fireman quotes confirming this. So if you're the BBC following the story, you are going to know well in advance a possible collapse is expected. So the reason the report becomes "mundane" is that we have almost an exact analogy to the Pope's death. Reports are coming in of a highly expected event, and very possibly someone somewhere misreads the words as indicating the collapse had already occurred. I'm not saying this is a fact, but a sensible possibility.
1
@1wannabee1 "It is IMPOSSIBLE ...within such a short space of time from the decision to pull it being made. THAT is my point here! Yes, I do get that point. But it assumes Silverstein meant controlled demolition. Maybe he meant pull the men away from the building. If you can't accept this possibility it shows that you see only in black and white. It makes no sense for him to mean controlled demolition. Think about it carefully: if the reason to "pull it" is to save lives, then the most sensible meaning is to get the men away from the building. Given this option, you'd have to be insane to propose demolishing the building. Presumably Silverstein is no dummy. The quotes from chief Nigro and dozens of other fire fighters show they were afraid of a collapse. There is no mention by anyone to set off explosives (there was one lone fireman who said "it's going to blow up." But that could just be fireman vernacular. he's the outlier.) Everyone else feared a collapse. You're hung up on a word and can't see beyond that to the big picture.
1
@1wannabee1 " is HELL did that woman report something that had NOT even happened yet?" You must not believe in reading other people's post. I gave you the analogous example when Fox News reported the pope's death a day before he died. Was that also a Grand Conspiracy to murder the pope perhaps?
1
@1wannabee1 FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro, on WTC 7: "The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged building. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building’s integrity was in serious doubt." Does this sound like controlled demolition to you?
1
@1wannabee1 "Ask ANY demolition expert and he will TELL you...." You're right. We cannot have a reasoned discussion when you constantly post misinformation. There are PLENTY of cd experts, such as Brent Blanchard, with whom I have spoken, who do not agree. It shows you are an unreliable discussion mate. If WTC 7 was taken down by explosives (which is preposterous in theory because who could have known how much damage it would have suffered from WTC 1 in advance???) then have one of the truther experts submit a paper to a science journal. Like, a real science journal, not the fake peer review Journal of 911 whatever it's called. As Noam Chomsky has said, it's the easiest thing in the world to do but they point black have refused to this day. Have Tony Szamboti submit a paper to am engineering peer review journal. What is stopping him? End of discussion is correct. Posting misinformation is a no no in my book.
1
@1wannabee1 I thought we agreed the discussion is over. Let's move on.
1
@1wannabee1 You're right. If the building was "in serious danger of collapsing," who in their right mind would rush in to plant explosives? That should tell you Silverstein meant pull out the people from the building, which is precisely what they did. "Pull" by the way is not a demolition term for explosives. This is simply another concoction of the truth mvt with its endless stream of bad ideas and uncritical theorizing. The idea that Silverstein would blow the whole plot on national TV is another example.
1
@1wannabee1 In demolition jargon, it means pull down with cables. That's obviously not what happened, and not not what he meant. Did you see any cables? The "proof" is that at that point, about 2:30p, they started to do just that. As in this fireman quote, who even used the word "pull" himself: "I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street." -Richard Banaciski Could I be wrong? Yes, there's no absolute certainty in interpreting people's word. Pull it does indeed sound suspicious on the face of it. But it proves nothing about controlled demolition. A casual use of a two word phrase subject to differing meanings proves nothing.
1
@1wannabee1 The other thing that simply doesn't add up is, Silvertein stated the reason to "pull it" was because there was so much loss of life already. Please explain why anyone would order a controlled demolition for the purpose of saving lives when all you have to do is get everyone out of the way. This is another example of flawed thinking IMO. "Please dont try to play with words" That's another indication of what kind of thinker you are. There is only one way to interpret an ambiguous phrase: your way. This is the kind of absolutist black and white thinking one expects from dogma. You have all the answers and everyone else is an ignoramus. Sorry, that's not how serious truth investigation works.
1
@timshea4279 Tim, thanks for those quotes. Unfortunately it seems Mark Roberts took down most of his huge wtc7lies pages, and I can no longer find some of the best firemen quotes. There was one in particular where they say the building was "groaning." Do you happen to have that one?
1
Then you agree with the official NIST reports
1
@shillhunter2.076 It is apparent from your astounding infantile logic that you do not have the intelligence to be part of this conversation. Your logic is the equivalent of claiming that an expert in zoology should have no interest in psychology. Or that only truthers are interest in the truth. The real question is, how can anyone believe such a monumentally stupid claim?
1
It's safer than not taking it.
1
@timshea4279 And the media reported KAL 007 had landed safely on Sakhalin Island. And of course we know flight 93 landed in Cleveland. And Elvis lives. Because I'll believe anything.
1
@timshea4279 Indeed. The basic theme from truthers seems to be, I am uniquely endowed with the special gift of scientific revelation. So by implication the scientific community must be blithering idiots, so you and me must be many notches more blithering idiots. BTW KAL 007 is always in the back of my mind in 911 kooker discussions. Because if you think about it, it's very instructive. It eluded the Soviets. In its first overfly, it flew for some 35 minutes over some of the most sensitive and highly guarded regions of the country and escaped back over international waters. (It was shot down only after re-entering Soviet territory) So for over 1/2 hour over a highly sensitive military zone, at the height of the Cold War, at the height of suspicion, Soviet defenses failed to intercept a slow lumbering airliner for over half an hour. Of course the truthers have come up with the absurd lie that in a dramatically different context, each jet should have been intercepted within milliseconds (I exaggerate a bit.) And it's total fabrication. In the Cuba hijack era I cannot remember a single instance of interception despite literally dozens or even 100s of them in the 1970s. Can you?
1
@evobase They stated they got rid of it because it was obviously erroneous.
1
@evobase Well I am not British so perhaps I misunderstood, but this is what the BBC wrote: "We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy)."
1
@evobase But either way, the real refutation of controlled demolition, and which somehow alludes the truth movement, is the fact that no government out to commit the Grand Conspiracy of the century is going to have as its center piece junk physics, the likes of which any dimwit can uncover in two seconds. That is crackpot, and shows the truth movement engages child-level fantasy not fit for adult analysis.
1
@evobase OK I take it back, I think the meaning of that sentence is they claim they lost all of their 9/11 coverage. So maybe you are right after all.
1
@evobase You don't have to discuss if you don't want to. I am just expressing myself. If one wants to carry on in adult fashion, then one has to drop the 4th grade notion that, to the extent the claim up for discussion is impossible plane impacts or controlled demolition, the government would rely on easily discredited junk science. There would be a unanimous consensus in the engineering community if that were true. No amount of tinkering with absurd logic changes that fact. Since this is precisely what is alleged by some skeptics - maybe not you, sensible people have to conclude that such people have a serious mental deficit. The US government may be evil, but it's not suicidal, or nuts.
1
@peterjv8748 The big lie here is the truther blackout (with one exception it seems) of all the firemen - dozens of them - who were warned of a possible collapse hours before. And the view of the south facade with smoke pouring out of it. This is taboo on truther sites. So when the BBC made a typical media error (recall Pope John Paul 2's widely expected death reported a day before it happened) the truth mvt, having no sense of how reality actually works, can't think outside of their own silly conspiratorial box. They are like fish out of water. They are not suited, in general, to serious research. So of course they act as if this was a big revelation rather than the mundane mistake it most likely was.
1
@shillhunter2.076 Yah, how are we supposed to make a living? I mean it's only logical the government needed to pay us for obscure youtube threads that no one but crazy people look at.
1
@shillhunter2.076 And where the truthers do a better job than any of us shills could ever hope to match, in making themselves look astoundingly stupid. I leave it to you guys to continue driving sensible people away from the truth mvt by the droves. Actually, the government should be paying you instead. Mental instability at its finest.
1
We heard you the first 100 times.
1
It's only absolute proof to those who haven't done their homework adequately. The decision to pull the rescue operation out of the building was made 3 hours earlier by NY fire chief Nigro. He and his team were very concerned the building might collapse, and the story was picked up by all the media. So all it may have taken was a slip of verb tense fir the BBC to get it wrong. You may recall that Fox News erroneously reported the Pope's death the day before it happened, back in 2005. These errors are hardly unique and are proof of nothing. The real question is why so few people are interested in the real truth. Not the fabricated one by the truth mvt. They fail big time in most of things they say.
1
@dariusbarnes8163 I've seen the broadcast, and I'm aware it was a live feed. It makes no difference. If during your live feed you get an erroneous update, a mistake is possible. "And there was no reason to be concerned about building 7 falling." Let's go there. About 2:30p that day fire chief Daniel Nigro made the decision to remove everyone from the building because of the belief the building was at high risk of collapse. His quotes are documented. Thus the media knew hours ahead of time the building was expected to eventually collapse. Thus this mistake may well have been no more suspicious than all the other things the media routinely get wrong. Discussion: -Do you agree the fire chief made a decision to remove everyone from in and around the building? -Do you agree the fire chief stated he feared a collapse of the building? -If not, do you think he was in on the alleged plot? -are you aware of the numerous firefighter quotes saying the building was entirely engulfed, that it was creaking, and leaning? -Were they all liars?
1
@MIKE OXLONG I said you are on ignore, but I'll give you one last chance. Show me the link stating Daniel Nigro is now a millionaire. Not that it would prove anything, but I'd like to see your evidence. Thank you.
1
@MIKE OXLONG Sure, take plenty of time to more than likely confirm your poor research abilities. But maybe you'll actually surprise me. I'm very good about admitting when I'm wrong.
1
I didn't find it. The burden of proof is on you to provide your source.
1
@MIKE OXLONG There are tons of Daniel Nigros that pop up in a Google search. I challenge you to show that your source corresponds to the correct Daniel Nigro. If you cannot or will not explicitly identify your source, then that says to me you are the liar, or have poor research skills.
1
@dariusbarnes8163 "There is no burden on me brother. " My fault, that was directed at Oxlong. I'm curious why you choose to completely ignore the facts I presented. You don't even seem to want to refute them. That says a lot to me. "if you have never seen it or will never see it." What makes you think I haven't seen it? "I will not negage in any argument or exchange with you or anyone else about it." Understood, not an issue for me. There's no obligation to debate things. I just thought I'd give it a try.
1
@dariusbarnes8163 "You will get no debate or exchange from me." I already told you that is perfectly OK with me. I try not to force myself on others.
1
@MIKE OXLONG Still waiting for that source. If you don't provide a link soon, you'll be back on ignore. As it will confirm you don't have one. If you had a legit proof, you would not be able to resist posting it.
1
@MIKE OXLONG Still waiting for that millionaire source. Me thinks you goofed and seized on the first Daniel N that popped up in your google search. Don't worry, this is a common truther boo boo witness their claims of hijackers still alive. They seem to think the hijackers' names were unique.
1
@MIKE OXLONG "Do you think I work for you or something?" That's the oldest trick in the truthers' book. When you screw up with your pathetic research skills, pretend I'm too stupid to find the link. Hah. You are as see through as they come. A bad sport who knows no bounds.
1
@MIKE OXLONG I do think I shall be waiting quite a while. If such a source existed you would have posted it by now. You think I'm that stupid, right? This is the OLDEST Youtube poster trick there is. You're the one who has the burden to back up YOUR claim. You think I should back up YOUR claim??? That's not how reasonable debate works. I'll give you 24 more hours. Feel free to expend your energy with another ridiculous reply rather than spend that same amount of time copying your alleged source. Truthers, especially the bullying kind, are so endearing in their own strange way.
1
@MIKE OXLONG Remember how this little tussle started. We were having this perfectly friendly and civil conversation. I gave you literally mounds of firefighter quotes proving the fires were major, and the collapse predicted. Then you said, "heard from who?" And I answered that as well. Then suddenly without warning or provocation from me you accuse me of deleting your posts. This was the turning point which revealed your deceptive nature. I called you on it, and your melt down has only grown worse with time. This all started with a unproven allegation. You know perfectly well what kind of character you have. I am honest, you are not. It's that simple.
1
@MIKE OXLONG "Here's a little clue, the source I have has a photograph of him, then his net worth then his very low ranking as a minor celebrity." OK I'll have another look. But even if it's true it proves absolutely nothing. Is there some reason you're so afraid to back up your claims the way most people do?
1
@MIKE OXLONG OK, you're right I admit it. I was wrong. It says his salary is $226,000 year. I get the truther boo boo award of the hour. See, that's called honesty. The real question is, who cares? edit: and unlike you, I'm not deleting my above posts because that would be dishonest.
1
@MIKE OXLONG Your continued implication I deleted your posts is dishonesty in and of itself.
1
@MIKE OXLONG "How are you commenting on their content then?" Say wah? There's this thing called memory. This is really getting to be quite ridiculous.
1
@MIKE OXLONG Silverstein / pull it. He said he received a call from the fire department commander, so that might well have been chief Nigro. I know where you are going with this. Correct me if wrong, but you seem to be assuming that because, in his abbreviated nutshell account on the famous video, he didn't explicitly say the conversation took place some hours beforehand, you make the assumption that the conversation happened just before the collapse. Another example of assumption and belief versus actual evidence.
1
@MIKE OXLONG By my reading of the BBC's explanation, they didn't lose it but deliberately got rid of it, as it was a dud report. Doesn't really move the needle for me.
1
@MIKE OXLONG "So you fully read and remembered a long detailed comment" Kindly point out where in my posts I spell out in "long detail" all of the particulars of your posts. I just remember the basics. I remember the key point where you started to make up stuff about me. and then having a meltdown. Who could possibly forget that? You're recent batch of posts are taking us nowhere IMO.
1
@MIKE OXLONG Perhaps this question might get us somewhere more useful. Kindly find even ONE uncontroversial, unambiguous example where the term "pull it" refers to controlled demolition by anyone in the demolition business.
1
@MIKE OXLONG "If it was 3 hours after he would say and then sometime later the building collapsed?" Maybe he forgot to? Maybe because he decided not to give a meticulous timeline for a short quote? Maybe because he wanted to piss you off? Who the heck knows or cares. If you picked apart every major news event as obsessively as thruthers do, you would find and endless supply of facts and quotes that could support any conclusion you favor. This is the very essence of being biased. Go by solid facts not by endless unproven speculation.
1
@MIKE OXLONG "find me one" Oh that's just too easy. If you did your homework, you would know already. Give me 5 minutes and I'll get back to you.
1
@MIKE OXLONG quotes from 9/11 firefighters: "Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there." "...but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini..." "so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety." "Hayden: 'Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon.' " More recently "Officials on Monday afternoon decided to pull firefighters out for the day, according to a joint statement from Williamstown Fire Chief Craig A. Pedercini, ..." OK, not pull "it" but that's a lot better than controlled demo. At least that's half of the expression, whereas controlled demolition boasts zero part of that expression.
1
@MIKE OXLONG maybe maybe maybe "Indeed, why ask questions at all" It's fine to ask questions. But to seize on ambiguous points of grammar, usage, and every last little jot and tittle of alleged deviation from alleged normal practice and obsess on them, avoids the more substantive elements of 9/11. Just MO.
1
@MIKE OXLONG "What about if someone was eating a pulled pork sandwich at the time of collapse? that proves no explosives were used?" Misses the point. If "pull it" could mean two different things, then there's no proof of anything from that expression. I believe it's far more likely it meant get the firefighting operation out. But I never said proof.
1
@MIKE OXLONG Yes, it's ambiguous. It's only a certainty to people who think in black and white terms and cannot see nuance. "the whole accepted use of a language" This is the logical flaw known as begging the question. Neither you nor I can come with a link to the exact phrase "pull it." So this "whole accepted use" is just your opinion. Nothing more. Nothing less.
1
@MIKE OXLONG "You just wanted to corner it here and have had to concede on this occasion. " I wanted to point out there's nothing remotely approaching a proof "pull it" is a term used for controlled demolition. This is a truther invention. There is no basis for it. Just because YOU think that's what it means doesn't make it so. I don't have a proof of anything. It's just my opinion.
1
@MIKE OXLONG "whole use of a language is not as we understand it." Classic trutherism. Taking a kernel of truth and going that step too far. When I first saw the segment, I too was like, WTF? It's natural to have that intuition. But to morph that into an agreed upon understanding is the element of exaggeration that makes truther types so endearing. Just like morphing your missing posts into me being a government agent. Do you see a pattern?
1
All that's lacking is the proof. Nothing new in Trutherville, where the complete lack of proof is their gold standard.
1
@shillhunter2.076 See answer in other thread.
1
@shillhunter2.076 Look at the thread where you asked me the same question.
1
Just shows they made a silly mistake.
1
Doubtful. Regarding the BBC wtc7 report, what Jessie doesn't tell you is that the collapse was highly expected hours in advance. It is therefore no surprise a mistake like this could have happened.
1
@trebor9711 Would you like to see all the firefighter quotes warning them of imminent collapse? Fire chief Daniel Nigro gave the order at about 230 that afternoon. Somehow methinks you aren't terribly interested.
1