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

[T.A.M.]

I would be interested in knowing where one could purchase these "Explosive" silencers. Seems to me if you could do a controlled demolition with out the sounds of explosives, as Christopher7 asserts, than you could do then at night, when it is less crowded, more safe...

So Christopher7, where do you pick up these "Silent explosives" or "silencers" for the explosives used in your theoretical CD of WTC7.

 

[T.A.M.]

oh, and if they did have silent explosives or "explosive silencers" (I cant believe I am saying that), for WTC7, why didn't they use them for all the "explosions" heard in WTC 1&2 that CTers claim are the CD explosives going off? hmmmm?

 

[TK0001]

oh, and if they did have silent explosives or "explosive silencers" (I cant believe I am saying that), for WTC7, why didn't they use them for all the "explosions" heard in WTC 1&2 that CTers claim are the CD explosives going off? hmmmm?

There were only so many pillows available in lower Manhattan.

 

[Trifikas]

oh, and if they did have silent explosives or "explosive silencers" (I cant believe I am saying that), for WTC7, why didn't they use them for all the "explosions" heard in WTC 1&2 that CTers claim are the CD explosives going off? hmmmm?

There were only so many pillows available in lower Manhattan.

HEE!

"Hush-a-boom" is the trade name, for those who remember the reference....

 

[kookbreaker]

HEE!

"Hush-a-boom" is the trade name, for those who remember the reference....

"Hey Rocky! Watch me pull a conspriacy theory of this hat!"

"A-gain?!"

 

[Christopher7]

HEE!

"Hush-a-boom" is the trade name, for those who remember the reference....

You got it!

available at: hushaboom_for_all_ocasions.obl

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Christopher7:

I'll put my previous post to you in the form of a question. Does the Earth look flat from your perspective while standing outdoors and on the ground?

 

[Pardalis]

Christopher7, I find this comment intriguing.

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.

So according to you, you don't need to be an expert to tell a collapsing building from a controlled demolition. Right?

So that would apply to everything else?

Let's make a test:

Can you determine what this animal is?

 

[Christopher7]

Gentlemen: How's your theory holding up?

The Nist report on wtc7 says the failure of a few key columns led to a global collapse in 13 seconds. [note the damage to the front of the bldg. did NOT play a part in the vertical progression, leading to horrizontal progressong, collapse theory]

Have you read it? Do you believe it?

 

[Gravy]

You know, Christopher7, we don't spend time on this stuff because we think it's a joke. Please address this post, and why not answer the other questions posed to you, all of which are relevant?

 

[Pardalis]

OK, my question was a little awkward.

I'll make it easier for you.

I don't expect you to know the exact species, but is the animal related to:

a) cats
b) mice
c) elephants
d) otters
e) monkeys

By relying solely on visual recognition (as you are doing with the WTC7 collapse), and without trying to learn anything more about zoology (as you are not seeking any more information about controlled demolitions), can you determine as surely as you did for WTC7, which of these families the animal is more closely related to?

 

[Christopher7]

You know, Christopher7, we don't spend time on this stuff because we think it's a joke. Please address this post, and why not answer the other questions posed to you, all of which are relevant?

So you haven't taken the time to do any research the to find out weather or not your theory of "debris and fire cauced wtc7 to globally collapse" is true? Probably because there is no evidence to back up the rediculous assertion that a fire and debris damage could cause a modern steel frams building to golbally collapse.

You are relying on visual recognition.

 

[Gravy]

So you haven't taken the time to do any research the to find out weather or not your theory of "debris and fire cauced wtc7 to globally collapse" is true? Probably because there is no evidence to back up the rediculous assertion that a fire and debris damage could cause a modern steel frams building to golbally collapse.

You are relying on visual recognition.

It's your CD theory, not ours. The experts say it's bunk. Please answer the questions put to you if you want to be taken seriously.

And please present your evidence that the "official" (interim) version is wrong.

 

[Christopher7]

It's your CD theory, not ours. The experts say it's bunk. Please answer the questions put to you if you want to be taken seriously.

OK We all agree that wtc7 is similar to a CD in these respects:
1) wtc7 fell down
2) the center fell first
3) it fell in 6.6 sec. (freefall 5.96 sec.)
4) it landed mainly in its own footprint

Agreed?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

yes
yes
no
no

 

[Gravy]

OK We all agree that wtc7 is similar to a CD in these respects:
1) wtc7 fell down
2) the center fell first
3) it fell in 6.6 sec. (freefall 5.96 sec.)
4) it landed mainly in its own footprint

Agreed?

Are you going to answer the questions in this post? Yes or no?

 

[Pardalis]

OK We all agree that wtc7 is similar to a CD in these respects:
1) wtc7 fell down
2) the center fell first
3) it fell in 6.6 sec. (freefall 5.96 sec.)
4) it landed mainly in its own footprint

Agreed?

Chris, my animal is similar to rodents in these respects:

1) it's furry
2) it's small
3) it has whiskers
4) it has small ears

Would you agree?

 

[Christopher7]

You've described exactly ONE similarity between the WTC 7 collapse and a true building implosion: that the center fell first.

A) on point # 2) we agree

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.

A) each demolition is unique but there are 4 similarities that remain the same

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:


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)

A) They stated clearly that they used drawings,pictures and videos. NO mention of anything else.

don't agree with you, and the the only "evidence" you've presented, besides a distant video, has been proven false.

A) Your only evidence is pics and vids too.

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

A) I see it differently.
A) if you could prove that something other than a CD could make all the exterior walls fall straight down at the same time

 

[Christopher7]

yes
yes
no
no

Gravy and i agreed earlier on this thread that the estimate by Jones' students of 6.6 sec was as good an estimate as could be made.

The NIST report stated on page 33 that wtc7 fell mainley in its footprint (or words to that effect)

 

[Pardalis]

Christopher7, it is impolite to quote someone's comment and change it.

ETA: You can't comment in a quote.