BBC Documentary Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
OPP OPP:
Do you honestly believe that this man, however young, is alone in his beliefes?
The amount of documentaries created on this particular topic is staggering! I have seen atleast five of them my self.
And of those, four were your own creations.
Tricks @ Wed Feb 21, 2007 10:48 pm
OPP OPP:
Do you honestly believe that this man, however young, is alone in his beliefes?
Point? If the popular opinion is what's right then we should not even be arguing about this.
$1:
The amount of documentaries created on this particular topic is staggering! I have seen atleast five of them my self.
Again, what is your point? There were probably documentaries made on the Pearl Harbour CT. The JFK CT. Does that make them more credible? Of course not. Anyone with a video camera and a mac can make a documentary.
$1:
If these beliefes and theories are such nonsense and so rediculous.. then why are you all spending so much time and effort debating them?
Because we know how foilers think. If they are ignored and no one bothers proving them wrong, they will automatically assume that no one can argue their point and declare themselves the winner. Conspiracy Theorists are the root of all Logical Fallacies.
$1:
Why are they not put to rest?
Because people like you are too stupid to see what is in front of you.
$1:
Why is there more and more people by the day believing that there was a conspiracy?
Again, what is your point? Calgary constantly called us all sheeps for believing in the Official Story. You do realise that celebrating more people believing this shit is celebrating that you now have sheeps on your side? Most of these people in an actualy argument would regurgitate Loose Change BS. They don't actually know anything about it.
$1:
You, and by you I mean all of you, can ridicule and bully people all you like.. it won't change this fact.
Fact? What fact? I have yet to see a good factual argument that can be backed up with concrete proof from a foiler.
SWEDISH WOMEN CONVERTING TO ISLAM
' "They convert to protest against the fixation with looks in our modern society. The tougher living conditions for women, who are supposed to both have a career and do the housekeeping, play a part, too. Many of the women feel that their lives lack a sense of purpose, but Christianity does not seem like a relevant alternative to them.
Then they experience some special moment and meet an angel, or some equivalent religious vision, and they realize that they have actually been Muslims all their lives. After a while they do experience that somebody tries to lure them away from the true religion, and abandon Islam. This could be mom or Satan.
The attraction of the Islamic family life seems to be a common feature among women converts. Several of them state that in Islam, the man is more rational and logical, while the woman is more emotional and caring. This means that the woman should be the one to take care of the children and do the housekeeping, while the man should be the one to work and provide for the family." - littlegreenfootballs.com
Uppsala University
OPP @ Wed Feb 21, 2007 11:39 pm
Tricks Tricks:
OPP OPP:
Do you honestly believe that this man, however young, is alone in his beliefes?
Point? If the popular opinion is what's right then we should not even be arguing about this.
The yank was trying to dismiss me as some sort of follower of a 23 year old college dropouts insane conspiracy theory when in fact it was the "debunkers" who brought his movie to my attention. I have not relied on information from this mans documentary to make a point nor to provide with evidence (exept for one instance, The Bin Laden Confession tape, when I had not yet seen the film).
$1:
$1:
The amount of documentaries created on this particular topic is staggering! I have seen atleast five of them my self.
Again, what is your point? There were probably documentaries made on the Pearl Harbour CT. The JFK CT. Does that make them more credible? Of course not. Anyone with a video camera and a mac can make a documentary.
You don't seem to recognize the wast amount of people who spend their money, time and effort investigating these events. This does not prove anything! That's not the point! My point was that you can not dismiss these theories as that of a lone nut.
$1:
$1:
If these beliefes and theories are such nonsense and so rediculous.. then why are you all spending so much time and effort debating them?
Because we know how foilers think.
If they are ignored and no one bothers proving them wrong, they will automatically assume that no one can argue their point and declare themselves the winner. Conspiracy Theorists are the root of all Logical Fallacies.
You mean like Ziggy did on "the Official 9/11 foiler thread"?
$1:
$1:
Why are they not put to rest?
Because people like you are too stupid to see what is in front of you.
I'm to stupid... You dismiss my arguments by ridiculing and insulting me. True "debunker" spirit, that is.
$1:
$1:
Why is there more and more people by the day believing that there was a conspiracy?
Again, what is your point? Calgary constantly called us all sheeps for believing in the Official Story. You do realise that celebrating more people believing this shit is celebrating that you now have sheeps on your side? Most of these people in an actualy argument would regurgitate Loose Change BS. They don't actually know anything about it.
Well.. that is your opinion and your firm beliefe. I belive the opposite and there we are!
$1:
$1:
You, and by you I mean all of you, can ridicule and bully people all you like.. it won't change this fact.
Fact? What fact? I have yet to see a good factual argument that can be backed up with concrete proof from a foiler.
I wasn't referring to the facts in the movies themselfs. I was referring to the facts I stated above.
You are acting exactly as the so called debunkers on the screw loose change movie, telling me that I have to present evidence in every single sentence I make.
Did I not present proof that evidence was being destroyed by the government? Did I not present proof that there has not been a non-partisan investigation?
It is the so called debunkers who dismiss facts and evidence solely because of their stubbornes and unwavering beliefs.
If you do not recognize this then it is you who are the sheep who do not question when in doubt.
OPP OPP:
Tricks Tricks:
OPP OPP:
Do you honestly believe that this man, however young, is alone in his beliefes?
Point? If the popular opinion is what's right then we should not even be arguing about this.
The yank was trying to dismiss me as some sort of follower of a 23 year old college dropouts insane conspiracy theory when in fact it was the "debunkers" who brought his movie to my attention. I have not relied on information from this mans documentary to make a point nor to provide with evidence (exept for one instance, The Bin Laden Confession tape, when I had not yet seen the film).
$1:
$1:
The amount of documentaries created on this particular topic is staggering! I have seen atleast five of them my self.
Again, what is your point? There were probably documentaries made on the Pearl Harbour CT. The JFK CT. Does that make them more credible? Of course not. Anyone with a video camera and a mac can make a documentary.
You don't seem to recognize the wast amount of people who spend their money, time and effort investigating these events. This does not prove anything! That's not the point! My point was that you can not dismiss these theories as that of a lone nut.
$1:
$1:
If these beliefes and theories are such nonsense and so rediculous.. then why are you all spending so much time and effort debating them?
Because we know how foilers think.
If they are ignored and no one bothers proving them wrong, they will automatically assume that no one can argue their point and declare themselves the winner. Conspiracy Theorists are the root of all Logical Fallacies.
You mean like Ziggy did on "the Official 9/11 foiler thread"?
$1:
$1:
Why are they not put to rest?
Because people like you are too stupid to see what is in front of you.
I'm to stupid... You dismiss my arguments by ridiculing and insulting me. True "debunker" spirit, that is.
$1:
$1:
Why is there more and more people by the day believing that there was a conspiracy?
Again, what is your point? Calgary constantly called us all sheeps for believing in the Official Story. You do realise that celebrating more people believing this shit is celebrating that you now have sheeps on your side? Most of these people in an actualy argument would regurgitate Loose Change BS. They don't actually know anything about it.
Well.. that is your opinion and your firm beliefe. I belive the opposite and there we are!
$1:
$1:
You, and by you I mean all of you, can ridicule and bully people all you like.. it won't change this fact.
Fact? What fact? I have yet to see a good factual argument that can be backed up with concrete proof from a foiler.
I wasn't referring to the facts in the movies themselfs. I was referring to the facts I stated above.
You are acting exactly as the so called debunkers on the screw loose change movie, telling me that I have to present evidence in every single sentence I make.
Did I not present proof that evidence was being destroyed by the government? Did I not present proof that there has not been a non-partisan investigation?
It is the so called debunkers who dismiss facts and evidence solely because of their stubbornes and unwavering beliefs.
If you do not recognize this then it is you who are the sheep who do not question when in doubt.
OPP OPP:
Do you honestly believe that this man, however young, is alone in his beliefes?
The amount of documentaries created on this particular topic is staggering! I have seen atleast five of them my self.
If these beliefes and theories are such nonsense and so rediculous.. then why are you all spending so much time and effort debating them? Why are they not put to rest? Why is there more and more people by the day believing that there was a conspiracy?
You, and by you I mean all of you, can ridicule and bully people all you like.. it won't change this fact.
No, I don't think he is alone in his beliefs, which makes the situation scarier than ever.
The fact that a 23 year old with no scientific background can produce a video, and people all around the world believe in it, makes me want to puke at the staggering idiocy that roams around the planet.
The documentary that Toro posted had interviews with people right in the middle of the entire situation. But you, like others, immediately dismiss them as being part of the cover up.
I imagine it never crosses your mind, they may actually be telling the truth.
And by the way, I hardly spend any time at all debating 9/11, I gave up on it, you're going to believe what you want to believe. Nothing will change that.
Wullu @ Thu Feb 22, 2007 4:41 am
OPP OPP:
I wasn't referring to the facts in the movies themselfs. I was referring to the facts I stated above.
You are acting exactly as the so called debunkers on the screw loose change movie, telling me that I have to present evidence in every single sentence I make.
Did I not present proof that evidence was being destroyed by the government? Did I not present proof that there has not been a non-partisan investigation?
It is the so called debunkers who dismiss facts and evidence solely because of their stubbornes and unwavering beliefs.
If you do not recognize this then it is you who are the sheep who do not question when in doubt.
To answer your questions in the third paragraph :
No.
No.
There is no need to question when there is no doubt. When you watch 757s slam into buildings live and in colour and then watch those buildings burn for an hour plus you only need common dog to understand what has just happened.
OPP OPP:
The yank was trying to dismiss me as some sort of follower of a 23 year old college dropouts insane conspiracy theory when in fact it was the "debunkers" who brought his movie to my attention. I have not relied on information from this mans documentary to make a point nor to provide with evidence (exept for one instance, The Bin Laden Confession tape, when I had not yet seen the film).
Don't flatter yourself, you're incapable of critical thought, you have made that abundantly clear. You have to be told what to think. you cannot even grasp the simplest concept of when steel loses it's strength, you have insisted in all your posts, the steel had to MELT to lose it's strength, which of course, is not true. Yet you stick with your "beleif" because someone told you not to believe it. Like the idiot Alex Jones.
ziggy @ Thu Feb 22, 2007 5:18 am
Toro Toro:
ziggy ziggy:
Yank-in-NY Yank-in-NY:
Nice documentary Toro, but do you think it is as credible as Loose Change?
I mean, it was produced by a 23 year high school drop out. You can't beat that.
Seen the latest?
screw loose change not freaking again?You got a link to that Ziggy?
Sure,right here.
screw loose change,not freaking again!
Anything else you want,it's all
HERE
OPP @ Thu Feb 22, 2007 5:24 am
Yank-in-NY Yank-in-NY:
OPP OPP:
The yank was trying to dismiss me as some sort of follower of a 23 year old college dropouts insane conspiracy theory when in fact it was the "debunkers" who brought his movie to my attention. I have not relied on information from this mans documentary to make a point nor to provide with evidence (exept for one instance, The Bin Laden Confession tape, when I had not yet seen the film).
Don't flatter yourself, you're incapable of critical thought, you have made that abundantly clear. You have to be told what to think. you cannot even grasp the simplest concept of when steel loses it's strength, you have insisted in all your posts, the steel had to MELT to lose it's strength, which of course, is not true. Yet you stick with your "beleif" because someone told you not to believe it. Like the idiot Alex Jones.
Have I written that? Why not dig that up then.
Quote a post of mine where I've written that. Now, please.
ziggy @ Thu Feb 22, 2007 5:29 am
OPP OPP:
Yank-in-NY Yank-in-NY:
OPP OPP:
The yank was trying to dismiss me as some sort of follower of a 23 year old college dropouts insane conspiracy theory when in fact it was the "debunkers" who brought his movie to my attention. I have not relied on information from this mans documentary to make a point nor to provide with evidence (exept for one instance, The Bin Laden Confession tape, when I had not yet seen the film).
Don't flatter yourself, you're incapable of critical thought, you have made that abundantly clear. You have to be told what to think. you cannot even grasp the simplest concept of when steel loses it's strength, you have insisted in all your posts, the steel had to MELT to lose it's strength, which of course, is not true. Yet you stick with your "beleif" because someone told you not to believe it. Like the idiot Alex Jones.
Have I written that? Why not dig that up then.
Quote a post of mine where I've written that. Now, please.
Finnish the same as swedish?
http://911vastauksia.blogspot.com/
OPP @ Thu Feb 22, 2007 5:38 am
ziggy ziggy:
OPP OPP:
Yank-in-NY Yank-in-NY:
OPP OPP:
The yank was trying to dismiss me as some sort of follower of a 23 year old college dropouts insane conspiracy theory when in fact it was the "debunkers" who brought his movie to my attention. I have not relied on information from this mans documentary to make a point nor to provide with evidence (exept for one instance, The Bin Laden Confession tape, when I had not yet seen the film).
Don't flatter yourself, you're incapable of critical thought, you have made that abundantly clear. You have to be told what to think. you cannot even grasp the simplest concept of when steel loses it's strength, you have insisted in all your posts, the steel had to MELT to lose it's strength, which of course, is not true. Yet you stick with your "beleif" because someone told you not to believe it. Like the idiot Alex Jones.
Have I written that? Why not dig that up then.
Quote a post of mine where I've written that. Now, please.
Finnish the same as swedish?
http://911vastauksia.blogspot.com/
Finnish and swedish doesn't have anything in common. I know some words though.
http://www.lolinfowars.co.nr/ This was the source.
OPP @ Thu Feb 22, 2007 5:57 am
Wullu Wullu:
OPP OPP:
I wasn't referring to the facts in the movies themselfs. I was referring to the facts I stated above.
You are acting exactly as the so called debunkers on the screw loose change movie, telling me that I have to present evidence in every single sentence I make.
Did I not present proof that evidence was being destroyed by the government? Did I not present proof that there has not been a non-partisan investigation?
It is the so called debunkers who dismiss facts and evidence solely because of their stubbornes and unwavering beliefs.
If you do not recognize this then it is you who are the sheep who do not question when in doubt.
To answer your questions in the third paragraph :
No.
No.
Time to dig up some quotes from good 'ol Bill then.
OPP OPP:
Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:
OPP OPP:
Do you even read the links you post? Are you suggesting 'Fire Engineering' is supporting demolition theories??
Here's some reading for you, since you missed it the first time:
Link$1:
...we-America's fire service-are left with one critical thought: How can we prevent a disaster like this from ever happening again?
Yes, it was the terrorist pilots who slammed two jetliners into the Twin Towers. It was the ensuing fire, however, that brought the towers down.
His actual 'call' for the investigation:
$1:
We, the undersigned, call on FEMA to immediately impanel a "World Trade Center Disaster Review Panel" to coordinate a complete review of all aspects of the World Trade Center incident.
The panel should be charged with creating a comprehensive report that examines a variety of topics including determining exactly how and why the towers collapsed, critiquing the building evacuation procedures and the means of egress, assessing the buildings' fire protection features (steel "fireproofing," fire protection systems, etc.), and reviewing the valiant firefighting procedures employed. In addition, the Panel should be charged with preparing a detailed set of recommendations, including the critical changes necessary to our building codes.
Nothing about demolitions or conspiracies - they raise issue with the fact that they wish to improve their firefighting standards to prevent this from happening again, and the investigation did not provide the ability to do so.
You are missing the important part
$1:
he warns that unless there is a full-blown investigation by an independent panel established solely for that purpose, "the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals." Manning explained: "Clearly, there are burning questions that need answers ....
This would imply that there have not been a "full-blown" investigation by "an independent panel". Doesn't it?
Further:
$1:
* The largest loss of firefighters ever at one incident.
* The second largest loss of life on American soil.
* The first total collapse of a high-rise during a fire in United States history.
* The largest structural collapse in recorded history.
Now, with that understanding, you would think we would have the largest fire investigation in world history. You would be wrong. Instead, we have a series of unconnected and uncoordinated superficial inquiries. No comprehensive "Presidential Blue Ribbon Commission." No top-notch National Transportation Safety Board-like response. Ironically, we will probably gain more detailed information about the destruction of the planes than we will about the destruction of the towers. We are literally treating the steel removed from the site like garbage, not like crucial fire scene evidence.
More quotes from FE's Bill Manning:
$1:
For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on the slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car.
Further:
$1:
Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall.
We can go on and on...
ziggy @ Thu Feb 22, 2007 6:07 am
OPP OPP:
Wullu Wullu:
OPP OPP:
I wasn't referring to the facts in the movies themselfs. I was referring to the facts I stated above.
You are acting exactly as the so called debunkers on the screw loose change movie, telling me that I have to present evidence in every single sentence I make.
Did I not present proof that evidence was being destroyed by the government? Did I not present proof that there has not been a non-partisan investigation?
It is the so called debunkers who dismiss facts and evidence solely because of their stubbornes and unwavering beliefs.
If you do not recognize this then it is you who are the sheep who do not question when in doubt.
To answer your questions in the third paragraph :
No.
No.
Time to dig up some quotes from good 'ol Bill then.
OPP OPP:
Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:
OPP OPP:
Do you even read the links you post? Are you suggesting 'Fire Engineering' is supporting demolition theories??
Here's some reading for you, since you missed it the first time:
Link$1:
...we-America's fire service-are left with one critical thought: How can we prevent a disaster like this from ever happening again?
Yes, it was the terrorist pilots who slammed two jetliners into the Twin Towers. It was the ensuing fire, however, that brought the towers down.
His actual 'call' for the investigation:
$1:
We, the undersigned, call on FEMA to immediately impanel a "World Trade Center Disaster Review Panel" to coordinate a complete review of all aspects of the World Trade Center incident.
The panel should be charged with creating a comprehensive report that examines a variety of topics including determining exactly how and why the towers collapsed, critiquing the building evacuation procedures and the means of egress, assessing the buildings' fire protection features (steel "fireproofing," fire protection systems, etc.), and reviewing the valiant firefighting procedures employed. In addition, the Panel should be charged with preparing a detailed set of recommendations, including the critical changes necessary to our building codes.
Nothing about demolitions or conspiracies - they raise issue with the fact that they wish to improve their firefighting standards to prevent this from happening again, and the investigation did not provide the ability to do so.
You are missing the important part
$1:
he warns that unless there is a full-blown investigation by an independent panel established solely for that purpose, "the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals." Manning explained: "Clearly, there are burning questions that need answers ....
This would imply that there have not been a "full-blown" investigation by "an independent panel". Doesn't it?
Further:
$1:
* The largest loss of firefighters ever at one incident.
* The second largest loss of life on American soil.
* The first total collapse of a high-rise during a fire in United States history.
* The largest structural collapse in recorded history.
Now, with that understanding, you would think we would have the largest fire investigation in world history. You would be wrong. Instead, we have a series of unconnected and uncoordinated superficial inquiries. No comprehensive "Presidential Blue Ribbon Commission." No top-notch National Transportation Safety Board-like response. Ironically, we will probably gain more detailed information about the destruction of the planes than we will about the destruction of the towers. We are literally treating the steel removed from the site like garbage, not like crucial fire scene evidence.
More quotes from FE's Bill Manning:
$1:
For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on the slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car.
Further:
$1:
Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall.
We can go on and on...
There you go quoting Bill again,have you even read up a tad about Bill? even he thinks you foilers are nutbars.
$1:
This article was scathing about the investigation, it’s true, but you might want to bear in mind when it was written. The context of the above quote might suggest it was after the 9/11 Commission Report, but in reality it appeared in January 2002, so Manning was talking about FEMA (and months before their report appeared). A readers letter a few issues later took issue with Mannings comments. And Manning subsequently wrote an editorial welcoming the news of the NIST investigation, which reads a little differently.
Also the quote alone can be misleading. It might seem Manning is saying fire could not bring down the towers at all, but that isn’t the case. Here’s the full paragraph, and please follow the link to read the complete article before you continue
However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.
http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_ ... _ID=131225Cached
Subsequent Fire Engineering articles shed some light on the magazines position. They ran a detailed report later supporting the “fire-induced” claim (
http://downloads.pennnet.com/fe/wtc.pdf), for instance. And In 2003 they produced an article suggesting that the collapse was in part due to overly-relaxed building codes.
The Towers, Fire-Induced Collapse and the Building Codes
Scheurman explains that the buildings' failures were in part due to fire codes that had been too far relaxed when the city of New York revised them in 1968. " The city is presently in the process of upgrading the Building Codes in the wake or the World Trade Center disaster, and this essay is my perspective, as a retired NYC Fire Chief, in furtherance of that process," writes Scheurman.
His report concludes with, " The World Trade Center's vulnerability to fire, as confirmed by the fire spread and mode of collapse, is partially the result of the building industry's competition for, real estate dominance and financial reward, affecting the building codes over the years. The Port Authority of New York, New Jersey using corporate and public bond financing and the governmental power of the two-state agency to sidestep the already weakened, city building code requirements effectively reduced the fire resistance and suppression capabilities and collapse resistance, in the Towers. The Government should disqualify itself from competing in the real estate industry and concentrate on regulating the competition between developers to assure fire safe building construction standards and the life safety of the people. The actual fire is the ultimate test of codes and construction practices and at the World Trade Center Towers, failed the test twice."
http://fe.pennnet.com/articles/article_ ... _ID=184582And a later editorial shows the true focus point for Mannings anger, post the release of the 9/11 Commission Report (again, please follow the link to read the full article).
THE TAINTED BRUSH OF 9/11 POLITICS
BY BILL MANNING
In early August it was revealed by New York Newsday that New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a month before the final 9/11 Commission Report, dispatched a strong memo lobbying the Commission for language that would cast a more favorable light on the city—and, by extension, on city management, past and present. With respect to the hottest hot-button issues surrounding the 9/11 response—radio inoperability, lack of police-fire cooperation and coordination, and the city's poor excuse for a new, "integrated" incident management system—Bloomberg's wish was granted. The Commission's final report coats the three issues with a layer of political honey.
City management had almost three years to circle the wagons to deflect obvious ineptitude and irresponsibility for which it could and should have been held accountable. Capitalizing on an accommodating and docile press, they've controlled critical information, dismissed many concerns of 9/11 families/survivors groups as grief-driven hysteria, and, with great cunning, used the firefighters who perished in the Towers for political cover...
http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_ ... NUM=1&p=25Yes, he thinks there was a cover-up, but not of the type suggested on most 9/11 sites. Manning’s saying it’s down to politicians covering up their responsibility in terms of the emergency services response to the events, the failure of firefighters radios to carry the vital evacuate order, and so on. A point worth bearing in mind, especially with sites that use the “damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel was not enough” quote without any context.NOTE: a previous version of this page addressed specific Manning quotes used by Professor Jones in his paper, “Why indeed did the WTC buildings collapse?”. Subsequently the paper was edited, addressing our comments, therefore we’ve now removed them. As there are links pointing to this page then the relevant parts will be archived here, for the moment at least, but are no longer valid for the current paper.
Now read it slowly,maybe more then once. Your becoming as bad as the other foilers for quoting out of context.
ziggy @ Thu Feb 22, 2007 6:10 am
Short version for you Opp
$1:
Yes, he thinks there was a cover-up, but not of the type suggested on most 9/11 sites. Manning’s saying it’s down to politicians covering up their responsibility in terms of the emergency services response to the events, the failure of firefighters radios to carry the vital evacuate order, and so on. A point worth bearing in mind, especially with sites that use the “damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel was not enough” quote without any context.
Get it yet?
Manning’s saying it’s down to politicians covering up their responsibility in terms of the emergency services response to the events,