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

[Gravy]

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.

You act as if we're new at this. I suggest using the "search" function to see other WTC 7 discussions on these boards.

Do you have any evidence of CD? The burden of proof is on you. Not your guesses, your evidence.

If you're not just trolling, you'll present it now.

 

[Christopher7]

Could you do a succint recap of the evidence?

Can you just answer the 4 questions directly.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Can you just answer the 4 questions directly.[sic]

Not until you provide some evidence supporting those assertions.

 

[Christopher7]

You act as if we're new at this. I suggest using the "search" function to see other WTC 7 discussions on these boards.

Do you have any evidence of CD? The burden of proof is on you. Not your guesses, your evidence.

If you're not just trolling, you'll present it now.

The videos, which we have all see, contain the eviadence i'm refering to in Q1, 2, & 3
The NIST report confirms Q 4

Will you acnowledge these statements of fact?

 

[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) the center fell first
3) wtc7 fell mostly straight down
4) it landed mostly in its own footprint

 

[Brainache]

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

OK I'll take the bait and say it looks that way from the video.
But I would also say that it doesn't prove CD. I would suggest that it would behave the same if it had great big chunks gouged out of it and was on fire for 7+ hours.

 

[gumboot]

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

I'll play...

1) Yes
2) I'm not sure
3) As opposed to sideways?
4) No

-Andrew

 

[Christopher7]

OK I'll take the bait and say it looks that way from the video.
But I would also say that it doesn't prove CD. I would suggest that it would behave the same if it had great big chunks gouged out of it and was on fire for 7+ hours.

Your right. It doesn't prove wtc7 was a CD
Theres no proof that debris and fire caused the collapse either.
So what are your answers?

 

[Brainache]

Your right. It doesn't prove wtc7 was a CD
Theres no proof that debris and fire caused the collapse either.
So what are your answers?

Well I have seen a lot of eyewitness accounts from firefighters that Gravy and others have posted saying how they could see a major gouge in the building and they could tell it was going to fall all by itself. So I don't see why you need to have super secret invisible inaudible explosives to make it fall down.
I'm sorry if that doesn't satisfy your criteria for a correct answer, but it makes sense to me, whereas the controlled demolition idea sounds like a paranoid delusion. IMO.

 

[Christopher7]

I'll play...

1) Yes
2) I'm not sure
3) As opposed to sideways?
4) No

-Andrew

Thank you.

2) The best clip to see the center fall first is at the 3:27 point of this video

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1643313543353229958

3) yes. I used the word 'mostly' because the NIST report stated:
NIST report pg 33 "The debris of WTC7 was mostly contained within the original footprint of the building"
if it fell mostly into it's own footprint, then it fell mostly straight down
4) see above

-Chris

 

[Christopher7]

Well I have seen a lot of eyewitness accounts from firefighters that Gravy and others have posted saying how they could see a major gouge in the building and they could tell it was going to fall all by itself. So I don't see why you need to have super secret invisible inaudible explosives to make it fall down.
I'm sorry if that doesn't satisfy your criteria for a correct answer, but it makes sense to me, whereas the controlled demolition idea sounds like a paranoid delusion. IMO.

You did not even address, much less answer the 4 questions.

 

[Gravy]

The videos, which we have all see, contain the eviadence i'm refering to in Q1, 2, & 3
The NIST report confirms Q 4

Will you acnowledge these statements of fact?

Got it. The videos are your evidence. Thanks.

 

[gumboot]

Thank you.

2) URL to follow
3) yes. I used the word 'mostly' because the NIST report stated:
NIST report pg 33 "The debris of WTC7 was mostly contained within the original footprint of the building"
if it fell mostly into it's own footprint, then it fell mostly straight down
4) see above

-Chris

3) I'd find it a bit odd if a highrise fell sideways from anything other than an earthquake or faulty construction. I'd expect it to collapse down otherwise.

I don't believe NIST have released their final report on WTC7.

4)WTC7 fell half on 30 West Broadway. When a building falls on another building, I don't consider that remotely "like" a CD. Demolitions experts get paid a lot of money to prevent buildings falling on each other.

If WTC1, 2, and 7 were CD, it was the worst CD in the history of the universe.

-Andrew

 

[gumboot]

Theres no proof that debris and fire caused the collapse either.

Putting it simply. Yes there is. Lots.

-Andrew

 

[Brainache]

You did not even address, much less answer the 4 questions.

I answered them in my previous post.
I said it looks that way from the videos.
That is all I can honestly say in answer to those questions. I wasn't there. I wasn't an investigator who looked into it. I am not a structural engineer or a demolitions expert. So all I have to go by is the video and those witness statements.

 

[Christopher7]

I don't believe NIST have released their final report on WTC7.

-Andrew[/quote]


so what?

They stated that wtc7 fell into its footprint. You don't believe them?

 

[Christopher7]

I answered them in my previous post.
I said it looks that way from the videos.
That is all I can honestly say in answer to those questions. I wasn't there. I wasn't an investigator who looked into it. I am not a structural engineer or a demolitions expert. So all I have to go by is the video and those witness statements.

Given the evadence i restated in post 210, can you answer 'yes' to any of these questions?

 

[Brainache]

Given the evadence i restated in post 210, can you answer 'yes' to any of these questions?

I can state that it looks like it from the videos.
Would you like me to write it four times in a list?
Would that make it simpler for you?
Even if I did say yes, I don't see how the opinion of someone with no real knowledge of structural engineering or demolition practice could be of any assistance to anyone on this subject.

I could also say that it looks like what happened to the cake at my brother's wedding. Would that mean that WTC7 was made of fruitcake?

 

[Christopher7]

2) The best clip to see the center fall first is at the 3:27 point of this video

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1643313543353229958

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

3) if it fell mostly into it's own footprint, then it fell mostly straight down

 

[Dr Richard]

They stated that wtc7 fell into its footprint.

No they didn't. Try again...