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

[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.

My first reaction was denial, but i got over it.

gotta go now. I'll come back tomorrow to see if anybody has the balls to answer those 4 questions yes or no (after reviewing the re-stated evadence above).

 

[Christopher7]

No they didn't. Try again...

page 33 NIST report. URL in a post by gravy pg 3 of this thread. Check it out.

 

[kookbreaker]

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.

And My point is that what you have brought here does not even come close to proof of controlled demolition.

'The Building Fell' - So? Buildings will do that with damage and unfought fires.

'The Center Fell First' - Why is this a big deal? It has to fail somewhere.

'It fell straight down' - Why on earth would it do anything else?

'It fell into its footprint' - It didn't really, but even if it did it hardly proves anything.

Repeating silly points as if they are proof of anything and bragging about it is not a form of arguement. So given that this is your only tactic for the past few posts, I expect you are going to accomplish nothing except in your own mind.

Meanwhile: Have you even read the NIST preliminary report on WTC7? Or are you still claiming that the connection you have that can download 4 minute videos can't download a pdf?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

page 33 NIST report. URL in a post by gravy pg 3 of this thread. Check it out.

First off, did you look at the L-32 image that was referenced in that part of the report?
Secondly, where do you think the debris should have gone?

 

[Dr Richard]

page 33 NIST report. URL in a post by gravy pg 3 of this thread. Check it out.

The debris of WTC 7 was mostly contained within the original footprint of the building. From aerial photos, the debris visible on top of the pile is mostly façade structure.

My bolding. Do you know what proportion? 51%? 75%? 99%?

 

[pgwenthold]

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

I really don't know what "fell ... into its own footprint" actually means. For example, CTists kept saying that WTC1 and WTC2 both "fell in their own footprint", but when I examined the damage caused by the falling of WTC1 and WTC2, I conservatively estimated that they fell into an area that was 15 - 20 times the size of "their own footprint."

This is in line with Dr. Richard's question. How much was actually contained within the original footprint of the building? How much does there need to be to consider it "falling within its own footprint"? What buildings _don't_ fall within their own footprint?

You are using terribly vague language. If you want to have a meaningful discussion, you are going to have to become far more precise.

 

[Pardalis]

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.

My first reaction was denial, but i got over it.

Do you realise that you are talking exactly like a religious person trying to convince someone to come into his cult?

 

[Pardalis]

I'm kind of disapointed in my hyrax argument.

At least I'm trying to add something cute and furry to this debate. 9/11 can get depressing.

 

[Gravy]

I'm kind of disapointed in my hyrax argument.

At least I'm trying to add something cute and furry to this debate. 9/11 can get depressing.

Ya, the Rock Hyrax (I've been over here yelling "Call on me!") They have them at my local zoo. Damn cute critters. I'm a marmot man myself, though.

 

[Sentinel]

Stp the presses !!

Goodafternoon Everyone,

I just got a DVD in the mail this morning.
There is footage that shows a firefighter at the northtower shortly before the second collapse stating "Clear the area theres a bomb in the building." And you can clearly make out a radio transmission stating "a secondary devise has been located" I don't know if its PAPD or NYPD but it is clearly audible.

Now, is this an excuse for CTrs to make an ass of themselves this year?
No, because this is a time to mourn loses not cram it in their faces again and again continuing to traumatize the victims over and over.

These people are cointel agent provacatures, they care not about truth or they would recognize that direspecting an American Ceremony for 3000+ innocent victims is desecration of HOLY GROUND where blood.

"The biggest trick the devil played on people was to make them think he wasn't real"

Oh yeah, theres EVIL !!!


To hell and Back In GOD We Trust

Sentinel

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Goodafternoon Everyone,

I just got a DVD in the mail this morning.
There is footage that shows a firefighter at the northtower shortly before the second collapse stating "Clear the area theres a bomb in the building." And you can clearly make out a radio transmission stating "a secondary devise has been located" I don't know if its PAPD or NYPD but it is clearly audible.

Now, is this an excuse for CTrs to make an ass of themselves this year?
No, because this is a time to mourn loses not cram it in their faces again and again continuing to traumatize the victims over and over.

These people are cointel agent provacatures, they care not about truth or they would recognize that direspecting an American Ceremony for 3000+ innocent victims is desecration of HOLY GROUND where blood.

"The biggest trick the devil played on people was to make them think he wasn't real"

Oh yeah, theres EVIL !!!


To hell and Back In GOD We Trust

Sentinel

Do you think that the transmission were accurate/correct; or do you think they were more along the lines of OKC where they thought there were devices, but it turned out there were not?

 

[Sentinel]

Comfirmation ?

There is a clear statement about the "secondary devices" in plural terms. The Firefirefighter is "clearly stating theres a bomb in the building"


I'm trying to get a ID on the FF and company in the video. It looks like an outer borough team. The firefighter states it twice to an unknown male civilian.

The scene shows the Firefighters getting ready to enter the north tower when he turns to the civilai stating to clear the area theres a bomb in the building. The civ ask the fireman to clarify the statement and the fireman states it again in a more authoritive tone and theres a cop standing there with his radio blaring secondary devices.



Take care


Sentinel

 

[T.A.M.]

Christopher7:

wrt your questions...

1) wtc7 fell down - YES
2) the center fell first - From the video I have seen, YES
3) wtc7 fell mostly straight down - From the video I have seen, YES
4) it landed mostly in its own footprint - subjective, but I would say likely YES.

But, if you are now going to comeback and say that by answering yes to all 4, that I believe in CD, you are wrong.

To make the jump that if something fits all the criteria of something, that it must be "exclusively" that thing, is not correct. There are many other causes of building collapse that could equally result in the 4 statements above occuring. I for one, believe that the interim NIST report along with some simple laws of Physics, shows how this could occur.

What you also do not bring up (yet), is all the other things required to make CD probable or likely, that would be near impossible to have occured...such as hundreds of hours of unwitnessed access to the innerts of a 47 storey highrise, that had people in it after hours and on weekends, all the time. The fact that there were no series of explosions heard, as would be typical of conventional CD. The lack of previous examples of buildings collapsed through CD using Thermite/Thermate to compare this collapse to. The lack of physical proof of Thermite/Thermate being present (and please, sulfur and sulfidation is a start, not proof).

 

[T.A.M.]

Sentinel:

I am not too sure how savy you are with computers, but a snippet of the video you recieved, with the conversation you speak of on it, would be a great thing for us to have and analyze, if you know what I mean...

 

[T.A.M.]

If this fireman is still alive, it would be interesting to ask him how he IDed a "bomb" there, what it looked like, where it was located. I suspect he didn't actually physically see a bomb, but to be sure he would have to be asked.

 

[Mancman]

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-4574366633014832928&q=bomb+in+the+building

Could this be the clip?

 

[Christopher7]

Christopher7:

wrt your questions...

1) wtc7 fell down - YES
2) the center fell first - From the video I have seen, YES
3) wtc7 fell mostly straight down - From the video I have seen, YES
4) it landed mostly in its own footprint - subjective, but I would say likely YES.

But, if you are now going to comeback and say that by answering yes to all 4, that I believe in CD, you are wrong.

To make the jump that if something fits all the criteria of something, that it must be "exclusively" that thing, is not correct. There are many other causes of building collapse that could equally result in the 4 statements above occuring. I for one, believe that the interim NIST report along with some simple laws of Physics, shows how this could occur.

What you also do not bring up (yet), is all the other things required to make CD probable or likely, that would be near impossible to have occured...such as hundreds of hours of unwitnessed access to the innerts of a 47 storey highrise, that had people in it after hours and on weekends, all the time. The fact that there were no series of explosions heard, as would be typical of conventional CD. The lack of previous examples of buildings collapsed through CD using Thermite/Thermate to compare this collapse to. The lack of physical proof of Thermite/Thermate being present (and please, sulfur and sulfidation is a start, not proof).

Thank you very much. You are the only person to answer all 4 questions directly "yes or no'

I appreciate your honisty, and reaolize that this in no way means you believe wtc7 was a CD.

These 3 very important things are consistant with a CD. (#1 is a given)
I'm only trying to get peoply here to acknowledge that there is a possibility wtc7 was a controlled demolition, however disquiteing that may be.

There's no way i can prove wtc7 was a CD because the the critical evidence, was illegally destroyed and is no longer available for analysis to prove what caused the global collapse.
For the purposes of this discussion, we all have to work the pictoral, video and eyewhitness accounts that remain. We also have differing scientific analysis that can be debated.
I'm not going to speculate on who, how or why so please don't ask.
Let's look at the evidence we have one thing at a time instead of going off in 17 diffrent directions at once, so we can have an intelligent debate, agree or dissagree and move on to the next point.

T.A.M. Thank you again for your direct yes or no responce.

Is anyone else willing to do the same?

 

[T.A.M.]

You are welcome.

There is circumstantial evidence for a lot of things. The problem I have with your 4 points, in relation to CD, is that the points have so many "possible" causes, that it is really weak evidence. for instance, all 4 points could be explained through Huge fires in the building combined with central hitting debris on the south side, to cause collapse. The vertical descent (which if you look at ALL the videos, it truely isnt nearly a perfect vertical collapse, the top of the building, from one particular angled video, tips considerably) does not indicate CD, but would be consistent with it. the fall in the middle first, is consistent with CD, but does not mean it was CD.

It is kind of like I told you there was cyanide in Johns house, and later that day John was found dead on the floor, with no signs of trauma, and the bottle of cyanide was atop the fridge.

Now one could make an argument that the John might have died from drinking the cyanide...but...perhaps he had a heart condition, and died of a heart attack. The questions need answering are, did John have a heart condition. Did he have suicidal tendancies. Did someone who had access want to kill John by poisoning? Was there cyanide in John post mortem. Did John's heart, on autopsy yield a Myocardial Infarction. Could cyanide poisoning cause such an injury, and once again did he have cyanide in his system.

Is my point clearer. If the evidence you present can be explained by a number of different possibilities, it becomes weak evidence.

 

[Christopher7]

You are welcome.

There is circumstantial evidence for a lot of things. The problem I have with your 4 points, in relation to CD, is that the points have so many "possible" causes,

that it is really weak evidence. for instance,

all 4 points could be explained through Huge fires in the building combined with central hitting debris on the south side, to cause collapse.

The vertical descent (which if you look at ALL the videos, it truely isnt nearly a perfect vertical collapse, the top of the building, from one particular angled video, tips considerably) does not indicate CD, but would be consistent with it. the fall in the middle first, is consistent with CD, but does not mean it was CD.

It is kind of like I told you there was cyanide in Johns house, and later that day John was found dead on the floor, with no signs of trauma, and the bottle of cyanide was atop the fridge.

Now one could make an argument that the John might have died from drinking the cyanide...but...perhaps he had a heart condition, and died of a heart attack. The questions need answering are, did John have a heart condition. Did he have suicidal tendancies. Did someone who had access want to kill John by poisoning? Was there cyanide in John post mortem. Did John's heart, on autopsy yield a Myocardial Infarction. Could cyanide poisoning cause such an injury, and once again did he have cyanide in his system.

Is my point clearer. If the evidence you present can be explained by a number of different possibilities, it becomes weak evidence.

There's only 2 so far

That's 1

That's 2

 

[Gravy]

There is a clear statement about the "secondary devices" in plural terms. The Firefirefighter is "clearly stating theres a bomb in the building"


I'm trying to get a ID on the FF and company in the video. It looks like an outer borough team. The firefighter states it twice to an unknown male civilian.

The scene shows the Firefighters getting ready to enter the north tower when he turns to the civilai stating to clear the area theres a bomb in the building. The civ ask the fireman to clarify the statement and the fireman states it again in a more authoritive tone and theres a cop standing there with his radio blaring secondary devices.

You do realize that there were MANY similar bomb scares that day that turned out to be false, don't you?