9/11: FDNY Member Says "Definitely" Bombs in Towers?

Christopher7, have you read any of Gravy's posts so far?

If so, do you understand the data they contain?
 
Mancman: Your talking about the center and my concern is the exterior walls.

Pardalis: I have red them all.

BTW i'm new at this, how do you grab a line from a post and put it in a box in the reply?

Gravy: Downloaded NIST report, got some reading to do
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
Reply) I'm a contractor and i understand construction. A failure in the center will not cause all the exterior walls to fall, much less at the same time. The only way that can happen is if all the exterior supports fail at the same time.
Click to expand...
So you're saying that controlled demolition implosions are NOT possible? Because true CD implosions are done by removing the center supports. If you think the perimeter columns were blown, where is the video evidence of these enormous explosions? Where's all the broken glass, the flying masonry, the clouds of ejecta? And why are large sections of the outer wall lying over the pile, clearly intact?

You don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. You said you take this matter seriously. I haven't seen that yet.
And i don't need a engineer to tell me what i can see with my own eyes.
Click to expand...
I'm sure your eyes are fine, but you've already demonstrated that your interpretation skills are sorely lacking. By the way, what sort of contracting do you do?

It was not a perfect implosion but it did fall mainly in it's own footprint.
Click to expand...
Inertia and gravity. No mystery forces are required to explain the collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7.

I believe the firemens' reports. That explains the collapse of the front of the building but there was little or no sign of fire arround the base of the north side of the building.
Click to expand...
The fire, and therefore the heat, was inside the building. Why would the "front" collapse before the interior? And why, when heat rises, would there be fires around the base of the north side?

The 4 min video i mentioned has several pictures of a section of wtc7's framework leaning up aginst the building next door. The steel i beams have been cut midspan, this is consistant with a CD.
Click to expand...
You make a statement like that with nothing to back it up and expect to be taken seriously? I wish John McEnroe was here. Let's take a look at those column ends.

First, an overview of WTC 7 perimeter column construction.

879044e7783b13aaa.jpg

Typical core column splices were shown on available erection drawings. The adjoining surfaces of columns were specified to be milled. The splice plates were welded to or bolted to the outsides of the column web and flanges. ...Perimeter column splices were similar to the core column splices.

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf P. L.14
Click to expand...

Perimeter columns from WTC 7 debris pile.

879044e7783b3f996.jpg


879044e7785da970b.jpg


879044e7783b78b66.jpg

Chris, how did you make the judgment that the building was BLOWN UP if you haven't done the slightest bit of research? Why do you leave it up to people who DON'T think that? Why are you making these extremely serious claims, accusing people of mass murder and of causing hundreds of billions of dollars of damage to the world economy, while I'm the one doing the work?

Does that strike you as wrong?

If you were accused of a serious crime that you didn't commit, how would you like your standards of evidence to be used against you?

Perhaps you're not an American and your interest simply isn't that strong. I am an American, and if I thought that my government was "in on" 9/11, I would bother to look into it.

Damn it, I hate this crap.
 
Last edited:
Gravy - terrific work, as usual.
As to Christopher7, I have to give credit so far. No screaming and ranting like some CT believers, and actually seems to listen. I'm going to take him at his word that he is going to go examine the documentation, as he mentioned to Gravy. That may take some time.
I've noticed that what started as "evidence", though, is now "I just don't feel that's right".... This is the turning point. Christopher7, if you continue on that line, we've lost you. If you continue to read and question what you perceived as logical truths, but which is readily refuted, we may just turn you into a thinker. Methinks you're struggling with the desire to defend your position because it's your position versus tearing down the evidence and at least moving over to the "I'm not sure, either way" camp.
 
Gravy: thanx for the link to the WTC7 section of theNIST report.

Hypothesis: A set of assumptions provisionally accepted as a basis for reasoning, experiment or investigation.
Synonyms: guess, sceme, speculation etc.

NIST report: page 50 L.3.5 Summary of Working Collapse HYPOTHESIS

" The working collapse hypothesis has been developed arround four phases of the collapse that were observed in photographic and videographic records: the initial event, a vertical progression at the east side of the building and a horizontal progression to the west side of the building, leading to a global collapse.

From an analysis of the observed collapse sequence, the following sequence of events APPEARS POSSIBLE."


After the best structural engineers at the NIST investigated and analyized the drawings, pictures and videos to prove their hypothesis, the strongest statment they could make was that it APPEARS POSSIBLE.

They had to rely on pictures and videos because there is NO HARD EVIDENCE!
Thr evidence was swiftly and ILLEGALLY removed and destroyed.

Whereas: the NIST, after giving it their best shot,could only timidly state that their hypothesis " APPEARS POSSIBLE"
Therefore: It could be conversely asserted that the debris and fire hypothesis is not bloddy likely.

Inasmuch as WTC7 looks like a Controlled Demolition,

see this 1 min. 46 sec. video of WTC7 side by side with a CD

youtube.com/watch?v=6_czyNCNhDI

it should be considered as an alternate hypothesis.
 
Christopher7, just a tip to make your posts a little clearer when you have to quote something:

888644e955725baff.jpg
 
Christopher7 said:
After the best structural engineers at the NIST investigated and analyized the drawings, pictures and videos to prove their hypothesis, the strongest statment they could make was that it APPEARS POSSIBLE.
Click to expand...

That's what scientists do, they don't rush to make decisive conclusions.

They had to rely on pictures and videos because there is NO HARD EVIDENCE!
Thr evidence was swiftly and ILLEGALLY removed and destroyed.
Click to expand...

Proof?

Whereas: the NIST, after giving it their best shot,could only timidly state that their hypothesis " APPEARS POSSIBLE"
Therefore: It could be conversely asserted that the debris and fire hypothesis is not bloddy likely.
Click to expand...

Wrong. That's your opinion. Your logic is flawed. In your logic, it could also be conversely asserted that aliens from planet X could have bought down WTC7.

it should be considered as an alternate hypothesis.
Click to expand...

Why?
 
Christopher7 said:
Gravy: Thanx for the link to the WTC7 section of the NIST report.

Hypothesis: A set of assumptions provisionally accepted as a basis of reasoning, experiment or investigation.
Synonym: guess, sceam, speculation etc.

NIST report page 50 1.3.5 Summary of Working Clooapse HYPOTHESIS

"The working collapse hypothesis has been developed arrond four phases of the collapse that were observed in photographic and videographic records: the initial event, a vertical progression at the east side of the building and a horizontal progression from the east to the west side of the building, leading to a global collapse.

From an analysis of the observed collapse sequence, the following sequence of events APPEARS POSSIBLE."



After the best structural engineers at the NIST investigated and analyzed the drawings, pictures and videos in order to prove their HYPOTHESIS, the strongest statment they could make is that it APPEARS POSSIBLE.

They had to rely on pictures and videos because there is NO HARD EVIDENCE!
The evidence was swiftly and ILLEGALY removed from the crime scene and destroyed.

Whereas: The NIST, after giving it their best shot, could only timidly state that their hypothesis "appears possible"
Therefore: It could be conversely argued that the debris and fire hypothesis is not bloody unlikely.

Inasmuch as WTC7 looks like a Controlled Demolition,

see this 1 min. 46 sec. video of WTC7 side by side with a CD

youtube.com/watch?v=6_czyNCNhDI

it should considered as an alternate hypothesis.
Click to expand...
No, it shouldn't, because there is no evidence to support it.

You realize that the final NIST WTC 7 report isn't out yet, right? Also, in any investigation of this type, the goal is to find the probable cause of collapse. What's your problem with that?

One thing that all the investigations have shown: there is absolutely zero evidence of demolitions charges at the WTC. Zero.

If you have such evidence, you will be the first.

The videos of WTC 7 look nothing like a controlled demolition, except for the fact that the building falls down. Nor were there any reports of demolition blasts seen or heard. Consider this video of a controlled demo of a skyscraper (have your computer volume on). http://www.break.com/index/landmark_tower_demolition.html

How about the photos I showed you of the perimeter columns, which you claimed were evidence of CD? Have you changed your mind about that?

You claim that the debris removal was illegal. Can you point me to the law that says the WTC 7 debris should not have been removed when it was?
 
Gravy: Since the CD hypothesis assumes that it was done clandestinely, every effort to cover the explosions would have been made.

THE EVIDENCE WAS DESTRIOED
The NIST report is bassed on PICTURES AND VIDEOS
If you are willing to accept their hypothesis bassed on videos, why won't you accept my videos as evadence of a CD

There's more than "it fell down"

First the center fell. This is consistant with a CD where this is done to pull falling debris toward the center and away from surrounding buildings. Even thought there was damage to surrounding buildings, "The debris of WTC7 was mostly contained within the original footprint of the building" [NIST pg.33] A clandestine CD would intentially be less than perfect.

Then the whole building fell straight down in near freefall (6.6 sec vs 5.96 sec = freefall) consistant with a CD as the 1m 46s video shows.
They both fell at the same rate.
Maby you think those beams broke off, i think they were cut with shaped charges. How can you explain all those I beams breaking off without first bending? As the video states, "steel bends, it doesen't just break"

You know that it's illegal to remove critical evadence from a crime scene, but i find the law if you insist. Further, since no moderm high-rise bldg. has ever suffered a global collapse [other than wtc1,2&7], both the law and common sense require a piece by piece inspection to determin exact cause.

It's been 5 years, still no final report. Yes, the goal is to find the probable cause, but to do so they have to consider ALL the possibilities. Thereare enough similarities between WTC7 and a CD to warrent an investigation into that possibility.
 
BTW Christopher7, how do you conduct a controlled demolition clandestinely in a WORKING OFFICE BUILDING, IN A BUSY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT?
 
Pardalis said:
BTW Christopher7, how do you conduct a controlled demolition clandestinely in a WORKING OFFICE BUILDING, IN A BUSY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT?
Click to expand...



At night and on weekends. Setting charges in the basement and non public areas could be done any time.
 
I have seen the 1 hr. special about the Loisaux family twice. In it they explain in detail exactly how it's done. Since i do demolition with a sawzall and a sledge hammer, i find this stuff facinating and i understand how and why it works. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know a rocket when you see one and you don't have to be a demolitions expert to know a CD when you see one. CD are very distinctive, easy to recognise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom