Transcript of Eric Lawyer's Fire Fighters for 9/11 Truth Press Conference

http://ift.tt/OYM9rQ;



Here's a transcript of Eric Lawyer's Fire Fighters for 9/11 Truth video. I posted it in another thread but it was off topic.



What are your thoughts on this? I was particularly interested by this part:



And just to put it in perspective – on a routine house fire, if we suspect even the slightest use of an accelerant, we're going to test for it. When there's no fatalities, when there's very little property damage, so to not do it on this there is absolutely no excuse. I can't drive that point home enough.



Is that true?

Quote:

Thank you very much. And like Richard said, my name's Eric Lawyer and I founded the Fire fighters for 911 Truth after I watched Richard in one of his presentations and I realized that something more had to be done. And I just want to thank Richard for everything he's doing here and Fire fighters for 911 Truth strongly support Richard Gage and all the architects and engineers that have the courage to sign that petition, and I know from personal experience there's about five times as many out there that believe what we believe but don't have the courage to sign it, so what I'm hoping today is that people will find the courage after listening to this presentation and seeing everybody here and seeing that we are behind it. We also demand an investigation that follows the national standards and has contempt and subpoena powers. 9/11 was the greatest loss of life and property damage in U.S fire history. This should have been the most protected, preserved, over-tested and thorough investigation of a crime scene in world history. Sadly it was not. What was it? Well, we know from their own admission the majority of the evidence was destroyed. I...like Richard said, 22 years of experience, I've seen a lot of crime scenes – I've never seen anything like this in my life. I was out at the site, I saw trucks leaving faster than anywhere I've ever seen but I accepted it at the time and for years I accepted it because it was a recovery and rescue operation and that's normal to have something like that going, again we've never seen anything like it but that was expected. What I didn't know for years, what was going on behind the scenes, was that evidence was being destroyed when it was shipped off. By their own admission, tower 7 investigation – NIST's investigation into tower 7 had no physical evidence. How do you investigate a crime when you've destroyed all the evidence? It doesn't make sense. They also admit that they refuse to test explosives...test for explosives or residue of thermite. Now, this is what I'm going to go into here just real quickly, is there are national standards for an investigation – that's what all of us are asking for, an investigation that follows national standards and holds people accountable. This manual right here – just so you can see it – is what we call the...kind of the Fire Investigation 101, this is the most basic fire investigation manual there, this is the 2001 edition, this is what should have been referred to at least, it doesn't have to be followed exactly, but it should have been used as a guideline for the investigation. I'm just going to cover a few of the things that are in here: So, NIST violated, and the initial investigators that did not protect the scene violated the most basic of the guidelines and I'm going to cover five of them here, one is the NFPA 9.3.6 – it covers spoilation of evidence. Specifically what it reads is, 'Once evidence has been removed from the scene it should be maintained and not destroyed or altered until the investigation is complete.' The steel was melted down prior to the investigation (we know that from their own admission, this is no 'conspiracy theory' stuff). 19.2.4, exotic accelerants, if on the scene you find melted steel or concrete, you should consider the use of exotic accelerants, and they specifically say in the manual, 'Thermite mixtures produce exceedingly hot fires that can account for melted steel and concrete.' It also says that they leave residues that can be tested for visually and chemically identifiable. Again they did not test for it. And just to put it in perspective – on a routine house fire, if we suspect even the slightest use of an accelerant, we're going to test for it. When there's no fatalities, when there's very little property damage, so to not do it on this there is absolutely no excuse. I can't drive that point home enough. 18.15 is 'analyse fuel source' – all available fuel sources should be considered and eliminated until one fuel can be identified as meeting all the physical damage criteria. For example, if you find pulverized concrete, which we all know from all three buildings there was pulverized concrete, then only fuels that can create seeded explosions should be considered. So they shouldn't be considering fires, they shouldn't be doing that. It doesn't account for pulverized concrete – they should only be considering exotic accelerants and explosives. 19.4.8.2.6 – extremism. The terrorist may include fire as but one of a variety of weapons along with explosives used in furthering his or her goal. We know they used them in '93. Why would we not test for them now? There were reports that day, multiple reports which I'll get in here in a second, so they could have put them in the basement...how do we know that unless we test for it? I mean, even if it is the terrorists that they claim they are, we need to test this. 14.3 – preservation of the fire scene and physical evidence. We find the following, 'The cause of fire or explosion is not known until near the end of the investigation. The entire fire scene should be considered physical evidence and should be protected and preserved.' It's just over and over, there are so many...you can go to our website the firefighters for 911 truth we have many more of these actual chapters that cover what they should have done that they did not do. So now, by their own admission, in all three building collapses NIST refused to test for, to physically test like Dr. Steven Jones did, for explosives. This is just unbelievable. And here are their excuses and I quote, 'It is unlikely that 100 lbs of thermite or more could have been carried into world trade center 7 and placed around columns without being detected, either prior to September 11th or during that day.' So again, I've been on a lot of fire scenes and I've seen a lot of investigations and why would we not test because something's hard to do? That's the exact reason that you need to investigate it. If that was hard to do, we need to find out how they did it. And number two, NIST excuse, 'In addition no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of the video recordings during the collapse of world trade center 7 or reported by witnesses.' That's one of the excuses why they didn't test. Well, apparently they didn't read chapter eighteen – eighteen is the general definition of 'explosions'. 'Although an explosion is almost always accompanied by the production of a loud noise, the noise itself is not, in big bold letters, an essential element in the definition of an explosion. The generation and violent escape of gases are the primary criteria of an explosion.' So that alone says they should have tested for it but then we also, NIST has lied and we can prove it, as soon as the new investigation happens that you're going to...the evidence is out there for you to see right now – we have 118 first responders have reported explosions, we have the radio transmissions from FDNY members that are still recorded today that reported explosions. We have audio recordings, we have video recordings, I've personally talked to witnesses that heard them, so there's nothing short of saying, 'They lied.' And they need to be held accountable. And besides that, like I said there is no excuse for not testing for explosives. So at the very least, at the very best even if you want to believe the official story, this was the most incompetent investigation of all time. And I've talked to a lot of investigators that were there, and I asked them specific questions, 'Why did they refuse to test?' They weren't the ones who refused, but NIST did. And they said, all they can answer is 'incompetence' or they tell me to shut up. They cannot give me any reason that follows national standards. So the reality after all the research, everybody here and the incredible people we're in the room with today have done, they're...the reality is that it was a criminal investigation to cover up the crime. And just to finish off I'd like to reaffirm – this is from a retired, decorated FDNY lieutenant, anyone who knows the fire service, he is a stud, he worked on a lot of company...26 rescue company, 3 rescue company 1, in his career, anyone who knows – those are amazing companies. Here's his comment: 'Trade tower 7 by itself is the smoking gun. Not hit by an aircraft with only a few relatively small fires it came down in a classic crimp and implosion going straight into its basement – something only very precise demolitions can accomplish which takes days if not weeks to prepare. The 911 commission didn't even mention it and FEMA actually stated they didn't know why it collapsed and left it at that. Brothers, I know that the above implications are hard, almost unthinkable. But the official explanation is utter nonsense and 343 of our murdered brothers are crying out for justice.'





via JREF Forum http://ift.tt/1kMqyC3