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

[Pardalis]

Christopher7, did you do any research on controlled demolitions in order to come to your "4 similarities" which supposedly always remain the same?

Did you at least ask people who know about controlled demolitions?

 

[Christopher7]

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

A) I cut things up because here are often several questions and/or statements in a paragraph.

ETA: You can't comment in a quote.

seems to work

 

[Christopher7]

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?

I'll probably regret this but.......where's your proof [refrences please]

 

[Pardalis]

seems to work

You don't understand, you have to unquote before you can comment on the person's post.

 

[Christopher7]

Christopher7, did you do any research on controlled demolitions in order to come to your "4 similarities" which supposedly always remain the same?

A) Give me a f*in break. How much 'research' does it take for you to come up with 4 questios


Did you at least ask people who know about controlled demolitions?

I just thought i'd try a novel approach and see what we can all agree on.
I have answered all your questions as best i can, Now will you respond to my question: Do you agree on those 4 points?

 

[Pardalis]

I'll probably regret this but.......where's your proof [refrences please]

I'm not trying to trick you, I am only trying to make you see that things aren't always what they seem.

I'll cut to the chase, since you don't want to play along (which I can understand)

The animal in question is an hyrax. Even though it really looks like a rodent, it's more closely related to the elephant.

Do you see what I'm getting at, concerning your interpretation of the video of WTC7?

 

[Christopher7]

I'm not trying to trick you, I am only trying to make you see that things aren't always what they seem.

I'll cut to the chase, since you don't want to play along (which I can understand)

The animal in question is an hyrax. Even though it really looks like a rodent, it's more closely related to the elephant.

Do you see what I'm getting at, concerning your interpretation of the video of WTC7?

Point well taken

 

[Pardalis]

Do you understand that by only looking at the video, it's not enough to call it a control demolition.

Do you understand that you have to do some research, and have knowledge in control demolitions?

 

[Pardalis]

For the sake of argument, I'll answer your "4 similarities".

(notice how I answer by not writing into your comment)

OK We all agree that wtc7 is similar to a CD in these respects:
1) wtc7 fell down

Yes

2) the center fell first

I think so.

3) it fell in 6.6 sec. (freefall 5.96 sec.)

I do not know the exact timing of the collapse.

4) it landed mainly in its own footprint

I don't think so.

Agreed?

No

 

[Christopher7]

You don't understand, you have to unquote before you can comment on the person's post.

Like i said before, i'm new at this. How do you un-quote and get multiple single quotes in a single reply?

 

[Christopher7]

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: Good enough?

 

[Pardalis]

Like i said before, i'm new at this. How do you un-quote and get multiple single quotes in a single reply?

To un-quote: [/QUOTE]

Also you can use this device to quote specific parts:

 

[Pardalis]

Pardalis: Good enough?

Is 6.6 seconds free fall?

Would it falling onto its own footprint necessarily mean it was a CD?

 

[Christopher7]

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

Pardalas? OK?

 

[Christopher7]

Is 6.6 seconds free fall?

ETA: 5.96 sec. = freefall
ETD............

Would it falling onto its own footprint necessarily mean it was a CD?

That's the only reason i know of.

NIST report pg 33 "The debris of WTC7 was mostly contained within the original footprint of the building."

 

[Gravy]

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.

False. Don't put words in my mouth.

I showed you a video that shows at least 13.5 seconds. I told you that seismic data shows approximately 18 seconds, indicating internal collapses. NIST has 8.2 seconds from the start of the east penthouse collapse to the beginning of the "global collapse," which you know, since you read their interim report.

I said that 6.6 seconds was the estimate made by Steven Jones and his students. I pointed out the difficulties involved in making such an estimate: not seeing the end of the collapse, not knowing exactly where the top of the pile is. I speculated that they calculated the 6.6 seconds based on the visible acceleration of the roofline. That is all.

 

[Gravy]

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

You completely misunderstand the situation. You claim the building collapsed due to CD. The burden of proof is on you.

What evidence do you have?

If none, then we're done here.

 

[Christopher7]

Gravy: I have answered a lot of questions, will you (and anyone one else) please answer mine directly?


Do you agree that wtc7 is similar to a CD in these respects:

1) wtc7 fell down
2) wtc7 fell (mostly) straight down
2) the center fell first
3) it landed mostly in its own footprint

Agreed?[/quote]

 

[Christopher7]

No one here is willing to step up and acnowledge the obvious.

My point is: all the evidence you need has been before you the whole time.
You just can't bring yourself to accept it.

The 4 (really 3 now) statements are true.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

No one here is willing to step up and acnowledge the obvious.

My point is: all the evidence you need has been before you the whole time.
You just can't bring yourself to accept it.

The 4 (really 3 now) statements are true.

Could you do a succint recap of the evidence?