First responders NOT INVITED to 9/11 ceremony at Ground Zero (because non-responder George Bush will be there)

Gee, remember his Big Moment with the bullhorn and the cheering firemen?


9/11 First Responders Not Invited To 10th Anniversary Ceremony At Ground Zero
Reporting Glenn Schuck

NEW YORK (1010 WINS) – First responderswill not be invited to this year’s 9/11 ceremonyat Ground Zero. That’s the word from city officials who say there isn’t enough room for the tens of thousands of firefighters, police and other rescue workers.

LISTEN: 1010 WINS’ Glenn Schuck reports

According to a report by the Daily News, security issues and making sure that all of thevictims’ families will be able to participate in the10th anniversary of 9/11, contributed to first responders not being invited to the ceremony.

Phil, a construction worker at Ground Zero, says the city needs to figure out a way to have first responders at this anniversary.

Read more.

9 thoughts on “First responders NOT INVITED to 9/11 ceremony at Ground Zero (because non-responder George Bush will be there)”

  1. Well, according to some in the 9/11 Truth Movement, some of these First Responders knew about the deliberate, pre-planned bombing-destruction of WTC7 before it happened, so maybe this exclusion is a good thing. What say you?

  2. I never heard such a claim. And even if someone made it, I don’t get the logic of your post.
    Even if some first responder might have been aware of such a plan (which I doubt strongly), why would the exclusion of ALL first responders from this ceremony be “a good thing”?

    John, you have a one-track mind. All you ever want to do, it seems, is ridicule ALL arguments against the official explanation of 9/11. But many of those arguments are sound, while some are, indeed, loony. To lump them all together is not just unfair, but a disinformation tactic. In any case, the valid arguments—those based not on speculation but on evidence—require a serious response, and not just a dismissive snicker.

  3. Kevin McPadden says he heard a “countdown” from a First Responder radio before WTC7 collapsed. This is a rare case of a First Responder accusing other First Responders of being in on the plot.

    You “strongly doubt” that a First Responder might have known about WTC7 beforehand. Why? What makes that scenario so less likely than what David Ray Griffin propounds?

    Why do you doubt a First Responder would know about WTC7 but accept, as Griffin argues, that Bush-neoconservatives-Silverstein-American Airlines-United Airlines-Mainstream Media are in on WTC1 and 2?

    I say both are equally loony.

  4. Yeah, whatever.

    As usual, you jump straight to the grand “scenario,” and call it “loony,” without mentioning a single piece of evidence—and there’s a wealth of evidence—that the official explanation doesn’t work.

    If you were a serious counter-critic, you would grapple with that evidence. Since you don’t,
    your only interest seems to be in vindicating the official narrative—as “loony” as it is—although it’s likely that you haven’t read that, either.

    Don’t you have better things to do? (Or is this your job?)

  5. The things Truthers offer as evidence are not actual “evidence.” The are assertions, theories, speculations, distortions and falsehoods. They are rumors and early, mistaken reports that have not been updated.

    Truthers claim that no one saw a jet fly into the Pentagon. There were plenty of witnesses (I’ve seen one speak in public). Truthers claim that there were mysterious “put options” placed on on airline stocks before the attacks, and this proves that someone had fore knowledge of the attacks. This was investigated and explained by the 9/11 Commission.

    Truthers say stupid things like the Twin Towers were “vaporized,” when in fact there was a mountain of rubble after the collapses.

    Truthers reverse themselves without acknowledging it–in true Stalinist fashion. First, they claimed that the buildings “fell neatly into their own footprints,” and this was proof of controlled demolition. Now, they claim that heavy steel beams were horizontally ejected hundreds of feet, and now this is proof of a controlled demolition. It can’t be both, yet they argue both without acknowledging that they’ve changed their stance.

    I’ve had Truthers lie to my face and say no debris at all went beyond the perimeter of the WTC property, which is absurd. There’s plenty of photographic evidence to the contrary. You can visit Ground Zero and see buildings gutted by falling debris.

    You claim there is some “non-loony” Truther position but you don’t define it. You give credence to Griffin who is just as loony as the rest.

    You are not a loony. You are a good scholar of media and I can’t believe someone as well trained in literature and textual analysis as yourself can’t spot the phonies of conspiracy theories.

  6. Some “Truthers say” this, and some “Truthers say” that. To take the wildest of those claims and say that the whole inquiry is cracked is just as groundless as to say that “blacks are thieves” because “some” steal, or that “Jews make all the money” because “some” have billions. So I believe that I _can_ “spot the phonies of conspiracy theory”—and I thank you for the compliment—just as I can see what’s bullshit in the official narrative of 9/11.

    The “non-loony Truther position” is quite rational, and easy to define: that the 9/11 Commission did a half-assed job, glossing over many oddities and contradictions, and crediting a number of outright absurdities. This is not all that surprising, since they were deliberately hobbled at the start (underfunded, disempowered and rushed), and then consistently stonewalled, denied a ton of documents, with witnesses accompanied by “minders,” and so on. (The commissioners themselves have noted all of this.)

    We therefore need a new investigation, and a proper one. That would be the only way to lay the “loony” claims to rest (except among real nuts), and test those that are strongly evidenced.

    Of which there are too many for me to adduce them here. But one that seems to me entirely credible is that Building 7 simply could not have collapsed like that because of isolated fires in a few office suites. You can quote as many wacky-sounding statements about Building 7 as you like, but such derision doesn’t alter the by-now-well-established fact that NIST’s analysis of that collapse is utter jive from start to finish. Period.

    And by “period,” I mean that the collapse itself was—both on its face, and according to voluminous scientific study—impossible as a result of the attacks themselves. It was impossible, whether there was a conspiracy to bring it down or not. The latter notion is, at this point, only speculation, but the immense anomaly of the collapse itself is not a speculation but a fact; and the sort of thing that a strong new investigation would look into.

    This is all I’m going to say about this here and now, as I have many other things to do. But if you do believe, as it appears, that we should _not_ push for a new investigation, I don’t really see the point of any further back-and-forth, since, if that’s your view, your mind is as tightly closed to any counter-evidence or argument as the mind of any ranting “Truther.”

  7. I’m Not Invited To Ground Zero On 9/11

    I strapped a gun to my hip and a badge on my chest
    and I’m not invited to ground zero on 9/11

    I lost my right kidney to cancer
    and I’m not invited to ground zero on 9/11

    My left kidney is at stage III renal failure
    and I’m not invited to ground zero on 9/11

    I lost my thyroid to cancer
    and I’m not invited to ground zero on 9/11

    I suffer from Reactive Airways Dysfunction Syndrome (RADS)
    and I’m not invited to ground zero on 9/11

    I have a lesion on the right side of my brain
    and I’m not invited to ground zero on 9/11

    I suffer from lung scarring, inflammation, atelectasis
    and I’m not invited to ground zero on 9/11

    I suffer from chronic bronchitis, small airway disease, growing lung nodules
    and I’m not invited to ground zero on 9/11

    I suffer from a chronic cough
    and I’m not invited to ground zero on 9/11

    I suffer from sinusitis and rhinitis
    and I’m not invited to ground zero on 9/11

    I am now disabled and have to fight for my benefits
    and I’m not invited to ground zero on 9/11

    I suffer at the hands of our self-serving politicians
    who invited themselves to ground zero on 9/11
    and yet, I’m not invited to ground zero on 9/11

    There was one other time I was not invited to ground zero
    September 11, 2001
    Guess it was a good thing myself and thousands of others showed up without an invitation.

    Sgt. Michael Swannick

  8. Simple solution. Bush and Obama can attend via sattelite TV ……If either have any character, that is what they would do……………

  9. WOW not enough room for the people who saved over 3000 people and lost their family members in this tragic attack. it looks to be a circus for politcal gain. cant we american just honor the dead and all the heros on 9/11.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.