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

[Christopher7]

CD is distinct compared to what?

-Andrew

another CD

 

[gumboot]

another CD

-Andrew

 

[Christopher7]

-Andrew

youtube.com/watch?v=6_czyNCNhDI

-Chris

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

CD is distinct compared to what?

-Andrew

another CD

Yes, the collapse of WTC7 and the twin towers is very distainct from any known CD. Wich is how we know it wasn't a CD.

 

[kookbreaker]

At night and on weekends. Setting charges in the basement and non public areas could be done any time.

Bull. Setting charges for CD is a very destructive process for a building and is not done eaily or quickly. Add to that the fact that the WTC's were international buildings and had people in them in one form or another 24/7, and the idea that you could place charges in them on weekends and at night is just asking to be spotted.

 

[NDBoston]

At night and on weekends. Setting charges in the basement and non public areas could be done any time.

Hi

I actually worked at 7WTC for three years up to 9/11 working for Salomon and then Salomon Smith Barney after the merger.

There were a number of floors that had people on it 24/7 due to the fact they were trading floors.

Most of us also worked way too many hours (I averaged 80-90) and were in on the weekends too.

Not only that but after the merger we were cramped for space. We had so many people that we were all on top of each other. If a crew tried to come in , it would have been a big deal. I never noticed any exposed columns or holes in the drywall or newly painted areas from overnight work. In our state at the time it would have been noticed.

I had a job that took me to talking with different department heads on different floors on a daily basis. The idea that a CD could have been done in the 3 years I was there is laughable.

I wonder how many security guards and SSB employees Dylan Avery spoke with.

I'm betting that number is less than one.

 

[Christopher7]

Yes, the collapse of WTC7 and the twin towers is very distainct from any known CD. Wich is how we know it wasn't a CD.

Obviously you didn't look at the video because it shows WTC7 and another CD just like it side by side.

Please ...... take a couple min.....look at it with an open mind, then tell me what you think.

 

[Christopher7]

***

 

[kookbreaker]

Obviously you didn't look at the video because it shows WTC7 and another CD just like it side by side.

Please ...... take a couple min.....look at it with an open mind, then tell me what you think.

We've seen them. They've been broughtup before. There is no resemblance beyond the fact that they are buildings and they fell.

Any real CD, the sounds of the charges going of is very loud and very noticeable. The documentary avoids this by running the videos silent.

There are also much more noticeable squibs in the real CD. The best WTC7 comes up with are compression artifacts that are on the wrong side of the building.

Add to this the 'side-by-side' neatly trims the part where the Penthouse collapses into the structure of WTC7, which happens several seconds before
the part of the video this show displays.

So again we see more selective nonsense from the CT crowd.

 

[kookbreaker]

I don't know who did it, how they did it or why they did it.

If you believe that there was no 'it' then your question is a bit retorical donchathink?

Not at all. If you are going to say that someone went to rig the building for demolitions, then you had best explain what the motive was. Why did they choose to blow up a building to cover something? This has never been well explained by CTers. The usual claim is that there were CIA offices in there and they wanted to hide evidence. But why blow up a building rather than shredding documents, or taking away incriminating evidence. Blowing up buildings spreads paper around or leaves it for cleanup crews to find.

In short, it doesn't make sense, and this is another reason CTs on WTC7 are nonsense.

 

[Mancman]

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.

Explain to us why 47 storeys of falling building (with a collapse point at the 5-7th floor) should take longer than 6.6 seconds to hit the ground. Show your math.

One thing WTC7 did not have that almost every CD has is sectional blasting, where you have 3 or 4(depends on the size of the building) blast floors that are detonated a split second after the charges at the base of the building so it essentially folds up like an accordion.

 

[kookbreaker]

THE EVIDENCE WAS DESTRIOED
The NIST report is bassed on PICTURES AND VIDEOS

Incorrect. NIST has been working with pieces recovered from the site when possible. Keep in mind that NIST can only work with pieces that are identified by location, and are relevant.

Also, NIST evaluates the situation based on hundreds of experts drawing upon over 100 years of tall building construction history.

If you are willing to accept their hypothesis bassed on videos, why won't you accept my videos as evadence of a CD

Because deceptively stringing two videos together in a slimey, cowardly way to make them look similar is the antics of someone trying to hide facts rather than reveal them. Where is the Penthouse collapse in your video?

Also, you completely and utterly lack the knowledge of what goes into demolition and structures. You also have failed to produce any aftermath evidence of explosives having been used (blasting caps, detcord remains, etc). Thats why the junk you present gets ignored.

 

[Gravy]

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've described exactly ONE similarity between the WTC 7 collapse and a true building implosion: that the center fell first. You did not address all the dissimilarities between WTC 7 and the Landmark demo, except to say that the explosions could have been disguised. Really? How? If you say it's possible you must know how it can be done.

I'm glad you brought up demolitions experts like the Loizeaux family. In an email exclusively published on this site, Stacey Loizeaux called the WTC CD theory "Ludicrous."

How about the next most famous CD firm in the U.S., Protec? Have you read their analysis of the issue? Here's an excerpt from the section on WTC 7:

Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event.

We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported seeing or hearing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse.

As one eyewitness told us, "We were all standing around helpless...we knew full well it was going to collapse. Everyone there knew. You gotta remember there was a lot of confusion and we didn't know if another plane was coming...but I never heard explosions like demo charges. We knew with the damage to the building and how hot the fire was, that building was gonna go, so we just waited, and a little later it went. "

http://xbehome.com/screwloosechange/pictures/WTC_COLLAPSE_STUDY_BBlanchard_8-8-06.pdf

So, the firemen don't agree with you, the demolitions firms don't agree with you, the detectives at Fresh Kills don't agree with you, the FEMA and NIST investigators (who used more than videos, by the way) don't agree with you, and the the only "evidence" you've presented, besides a distant video, has been proven false.

Do you still think you know best? If so, on what basis, and what would change your mind?

 

[rwguinn]

You don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows.
And i don't need a engineer to tell me what i can see with my own eyes.

True--
But it's the things you cannot see "with my own eyes" that need the engineer/physicist/chemist/weatherman to explain

 

[Pardalis]

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.

Christopher7, can you tell me what this animal looks like?

 

[Orb]

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.

Hi Christopher7,

What does this look like to you?

Could it be possible pictures and video are sometimes deceiving?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Hi Christopher7,

What does this look like to you?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/661944e9e73a04791.jpg[/qimg]

Could it be possible pictures and video are sometimes deceiving?

A long thin object wich feminists claim only exists because men are obsessed with thier penises (penii?) belching fire and tearing into the sky.

Clearly this is a photograph of the Apollo 11 moon launch.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Obviously you didn't look at the video because it shows WTC7 and another CD just like it side by side.

Please ...... take a couple min.....look at it with an open mind, then tell me what you think.

Yes, I have seen the WTC7 footage.

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi

I know of no CD wherein the entire building was on fire and pouring smoke from every floor for several hours before the charges were set off. When lit on fire, C4 burns, it doesn't blow. Had there been any charges inside WTC7, they would have burned away in the 5+ hours that WTC7 was left to burn. Ergo, by the conspiracists own arguments, WTC7 could not have collapsed at all.

Please ...... take a couple min.....look at it with an open mind, then tell me what you think.

 

[Trifikas]

when they cleverly guessed that debris from the sure-to-fall towers (man, I bet they were sweating when the drones flew into the towers, they had a lot of delicate explosive charges up there that had to stay intact in order for their sinister plan to be carried out!) would crash into WTC 7, causing just the right amount of damage (not enough to actually cause the building to collapse, of course, but just enough to provide a semi-legitimate excuse for it's eventual controlled demolition with the latest rage in CD technology - silent explosives!)

You know, that's another piece that was bugging me about a CT of WTC 7 that I couldn't put my finger on. A sinister demolition of 7 REQUIRES a demoltion of WTC 1+2 that is so controlled as to eject a piece into WTC 7. If the collapse of 1&2 doesn't make it to 7, all the plans to get 7 destroyed go out the window.

 

[TK0001]

You know, that's another piece that was bugging me about a CT of WTC 7 that I couldn't put my finger on. A sinister demolition of 7 REQUIRES a demoltion of WTC 1+2 that is so controlled as to eject a piece into WTC 7. If the collapse of 1&2 doesn't make it to 7, all the plans to get 7 destroyed go out the window.

Them gubment injuneers am smrt!!!