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

[tsig]

versions

It all comes back to the 5 second video of WTC7 falling straight down.
By the time that building went out of sight i knew ...... in fact my first reaction was denial. It wasen't until i saw the wtc7 collapse again on the History channel a couple months later that it hit home.

this the most serious issue any of us will ever face and it's imperative we get it right.

Did you see it then, or on the History channel?

 

[Woody-]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=belief

be‧lief 

1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

Nope, nothing about evidence and facts in there.

 

[T.A.M.]

It all comes back to the 5 second video of WTC7 falling straight down.
By the time that building went out of sight i knew it was a controled demolition. That's what got me involved in the so called 'Truth movement'.

I have to agree with the others here Chris, millions of others watched that building fall just like you did, and did not come to any sort of conclusion that it was CD. Many said looked similar to it in the way it fell. I don't deny that WTC7 fell looking like a CD, that does not mean it did. Nobody begins this discussion completely neutral. Some are more neutral than others, but everyone has an opinion before they make their first post. It was your view and opinion that has put you on the arguing side at this forum, and it is that bias that made you take the leap from "looks similar to a controlled demolition" to "I knew it was a CD".

I respect your right to see it diffrently but i can't understand the position 'it doesn't look anything like a CD' or 'it's definately not a CD'.

While I am sure occasionally you will hear things said like that, flipently, very few here will stand up and say "It looked NOTHING like a demolition." or "It's Definitely not a CD."

What you will commonly hear, is, "There is no proof that it was caused by a CD, so until there is, I am sticking with the official story".

I can appreciate your dificulty in understanding my position and i don't think less of you for your beliefs.
We can debate all the diffrent points like the cut/broken beams ad nasium and where neither of us will sway the other on the basic issue, although i have had to rethink and alter my position on some things because of what i have learned in our discussions.

Noone here, or on CT sites realisticly expect to turn any of the "believers' on either side. The purpose for most of us is to make sure there is a "logical" resource presenting the fact of the attacks for the "Fence Sitters" and "Joe Public" to find when the question of 9/11 enters there minds.

I don't think this was a case of negligence. I believe Cheney, Rumsfield, et al, knew the attacks were coming, let it happen, and used it to further their quest to control the worlds oil supply.
I know that this is an extreamly serious charge and I woulden't make it if i were not certain. After doing a lot of reading and debating i'm convinced this is the case.

Are you convinced that they knew the time and place? My thought is that they new an attack was coming, but they did not know when exactly or where, or exactly how. I have been shown NO evidence that indicates they new anything about the exact nature of the attacks.

It's incredibly hard to believe that something like this could happen here, in fact my first reaction was denial. It wasen't until i saw the wtc7 collapse again on the History channel a couple months later that it hit home.

Seems like an aweful flimsy thing to lay your entire belief on. I am sure more than the WTC 7 collapse did it. Likely it was the solidifying event for you.

I am here debating because this issue will be debated nationally soon and if i'm going to stick my foot in my mouth i'd rather do it here and now so i can get my position absolutely straight for when it really counts.

One of the smartest things you have said...

TAM

 

[Christopher7]

Vaya con dios

 

[Belz...]

It all comes back to the 5 second video of WTC7 falling straight down.
By the time that building went out of sight i knew it was a controled demolition. That's what got me involved in the so called 'Truth movement'.

So, what you're saying is that you didn't actually use expertise, logic or reason. You just "knew" ?

It's a good thing Galileo wasn't like you.

I respect your right to see it diffrently but i can't understand the position 'it doesn't look anything like a CD' or 'it's definately not a CD'.

See, in actual controlled demolitions, the building falls from the bottom up, and towards the center of its "footprint". Otherwise there's no way to control the fall. WTC7 didn't fall towards its own center; and WTC1 and 2 fell from the top down. Also, all three are missing the caracteristic demolition charges that not only produce loud "bangs", but also explode in non-random ways, whole floors at a time. So, aside from falling down, none of the WTC building collapses looked like a demolition job.

I don't think this was a case of negligence. I believe Cheney, Rumsfield, et al, knew the attacks were coming, let it happen, and used it to further their quest to control the worlds oil supply.

Well, they screwed it up royally, didn't they ?

I also don't see why they "let" it happen. Had they had to shoot down airplanes full of civilians, or managed to evacuate each building in time, they would have minimised the casualties greatly while still achieving the desired results.

I know that this is an extreamly serious charge and i woulden't make it if i were not certain. After doing a lot of reading and debating i'm convinced this is the case.

If you are CERTAIN, then you must have some sort of proof. I think it would be time you presented that proof in court. If what you claim is correct, it could be a dire threat to freedom in north-america. Yapping about it in a forum isn't going to help, unless you're NOT certain.

It's incredibly hard to believe that something like this could happen here, in fact my first reaction was denial. It wasen't until i saw the wtc7 collapse again on the History channel a couple months later that it hit home.

As far as I know no one died in WTC7. So why destroy it ? Did you read the reports that say that 20 stories were missing on the south side of the building ? Raging fires ? Why would you need to demolish a building that firefighters agree is going to collapse anyway because of the debris ?

This the most serious issue any of us will ever face and it's imperative we get it right.

This, however, I agree with.

 

[Architect]

Vaya con dios

¿Es usted español? ¿Sudamericano?

 

[stateofgrace]

It all comes back to the 5 second video of WTC7 falling straight down.
By the time that building went out of sight i knew it was a controled demolition. That's what got me involved in the so called 'Truth movement'.

Chris I'm kind of new here but maybe you could help me out. See, I have this problem with WTC 7 and since you knew straight away it was a CD; you are just the man to help.

Here is the problem, since you knew straight away it was a controlled demolition and you have very little expertise in this area, would it not stand to reason, that hundreds, nay thousands of highly qualified experts in this area would know also. I mean they would know immediately that WTC 7 was brought down by explosives.

So here in lies my problem and since you know I'm sure you could help out. It would stand to reasons that, as I've stated thousands of qualified experts would see it so why allow it to be filmed in the first place?

Surely if you were about to commit an act of evil, the last thing you would want would be thousands of highly qualified experts to see it. Why didn't they just drop WTC 7 under cover of the cloud dust generated from the collapse of the towers? Why wait for the dust to settle, the worlds media to gather, announce the building was unsafe and then "pull it"?

You have to be incredibly stupid to do such a thing but hey, since you know, I'm sure you will be able to figure out why they did they way they did. Rather than being sensible and sane and not allow anybody to see it.


Just curious.

 

[Christopher7]

I have to agree with the others here Chris, millions of others watched that building fall just like you did, and did not come to any sort of conclusion that it was CD. Many said looked similar to it in the way it fell. I don't deny that WTC7 fell looking like a CD, that does not mean it did. Nobody begins this discussion completely neutral. Some are more neutral than others, but everyone has an opinion before they make their first post. It was your view and opinion that has put you on the arguing side at this forum, and it is that bias that made you take the leap from "looks similar to a controlled demolition" to "I knew it was a CD".

ans) milinos of people recognised that wtc7 was a CD.
You don't have to be an expert to know a CD when you see one.




While I am sure occasionally you will hear things said like that, flipently, very few here will stand up and say "It looked NOTHING like a demolition." or "It's Definitely not a CD."

What you will commonly hear, is, "There is no proof that it was caused by a CD, so until there is, I am sticking with the official story".

Ans) ETA (in my opinion) The several videos of the wtc7 collapse are the proof. That's not just my opinion but the opinion of an ever increasing number of people world wide.
There is no proof that wyc7 collapsed due to fire, on the contrary, NIST tryed to prove that fire brought down wtc7 and could not.
Please note: the NIST hypothesis makes no mention of the debreis damage, only the fire.
People here site the opinions of fire fighters and others as proof/evidence



None here, or on CT sites realisticly expect to turn any of the "believers' on either side. The purpose for most of us is to make sure there is a "logical" resource presenting the fact of the attacks for the "Fence Sitters" and "Joe Public" to find when the question of 9/11 enters there minds.



Are you convinced that they knew the time and place? My thought is that they new an attack was coming, but they did not know when exactly or where, or exactly how. I have been shown NO evidence that indicates they new anything about the exact nature of the attacks.

Ans) In my opinion and the opinion of millions of others wtc7 was a CD
It takes weeks to rig a bldg. for a CD
Therefore: prior knowledge
Since neither side has proof (other than the videos) we are all expressing opinions.




Seems like an aweful flimsy thing to lay your entire belief on. I am sure more than the WTC 7 collapse did it. Likely it was the solidifying event for you.

Ans) Yes. I have done a lot of research on the subject and the official explination is full of holes. There are meny qualified people, who have no reason to lie, that believe as i do.




TAM

Thank you for your inteligent, non abusive responce.

 

[twinstead]

Here is the problem, since you knew straight away it was a controlled demolition and you have very little expertise in this area, would it not stand to reason, that hundreds, nay thousands of highly qualified experts in this area would know also. I mean they would know immediately that WTC 7 was brought down by explosives.

I also wonder about that. If 'some guy' with no relevant training or knowledge in CD can be 100% sure it was CD just by looking at the collapse, a true expert in CD would know in a second. And if WTC7 was brought down by CD, that would be a pretty good reason to look at WTC1 and 2.

Where are all these folks? Shouldn't they be coming out through the woodwork to protest the possible mass murder of thousands of innocent people, or does it indeed only have a slight superficial resemblance to a CD, and the armchair 'investigators', like Chris, really have no idea what they are talking about?

Is this a study in structural engineering, or psychology?

 

[T.A.M.]

Chris:

A sticky point, but in future, if possible, could you seperate my quote from your reponses, makes reading it easier...Thanks.

ans) milinos of people recognised that wtc7 was a CD.
You don't have to be an expert to know a CD when you see one.

I doubt millions recognized it as CD. If you are going to make such a monumental statement, you must bring SOLID EVIDENCE to prove it, or it is only your opinion. If Millions recognized it as CD, implicating an additional act of terrorism, or implicating foul play, then this would not have just gone away, and MSM would have been covering it. All that said...just show me your reference indicating Millions believe WTC7 WAS A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

I think what is more likely is that Millions would say that WTC7 Collapse Looked SIMILAR TO a Controlled Demolition.

Ans) ETA (in my opinion) The several videos of the wtc7 collapse are the proof. That's not just my opinion but the opinion of an ever increasing number of people world wide.
There is no proof that wyc7 collapsed due to fire, on the contrary, NIST tryed to prove that fire brought down wtc7 and could not.
Please note: the NIST hypothesis makes no mention of the debreis damage, only the fire.
People here site the opinions of fire fighters and others as proof/evidence

Your opinion here is dated. Read the interim report from NIST on WTC7. Debris damage is heavily discussed and is brought in as part of the cause of the collapse.

NIST REVIEW

The interim report is close to the bottom of the list of NIST documents. It is titled "Interim Report on WTC 7" and is there in PDF for your download and review.

Videos are not sufficient as proof, particularly when all they show is how it fell from 1-2 angles, and the approximate speed it fell. There are so many other variables.

If you were being accused of a break and enter crime, and the only evidence the prosecuter had was a broken window broken like someone hit it with a crowbar, and that items inside were taken, in keeping with a B&E, would you think that uis enough to convict you, or EVEn accuse you?

Ans) In my opinion and the opinion of millions of others wtc7 was a CD
It takes weeks to rig a bldg. for a CD
Therefore: prior knowledge
Since neither side has proof (other than the videos) we are all expressing opinions.

Once again, give me your proof before you make the statement "Millions think it was a CD" or else, restate it as "I BELIEVE millions think it was a CD". As to the time to set up a CD, you are right it takes a large amount of time, manpower, etc...and yet we have had a witness on here at the forum, who worked in WTC7 who never saw anyone come in and do anything remotely close to "Renovations", and this witness says he worked weekends, and often late into the evening.

And it is innocent til proven guilty, and since all you have are videos and a subjective interpretation of Silversteins comments, you cannot convict, Nay I say you would be slanderous even to accuse with such little evidence.

Ans) Yes. I have done a lot of research on the subject and the official explination is full of holes. There are meny qualified people, who have no reason to lie, that believe as i do.

Show me your list of QUALIFIED PEOPLE (Structural/Civil Engineers, Demolition Experts, Firemen/women) who believe as you do, and then I will list off the QUALIFICATIONS of the people of NIST, FEMA, ASCE, MIT Engineering Faculty, etc...Who believe the opposite of what you do.

Oh and before you start, if you are gonna just quote all the members of the "Scholars" I would appreciate their qualifications next to them, as to join that "sham" of a group, you don't need to have any "Qualifications", as Steven Jones has proven by putting people on this list who do not qualify by his very own criteria.

TAM

 

[R.Mackey]

ans) milinos of people recognised that wtc7 was a CD.
You don't have to be an expert to know a CD when you see one.

The experts have recognized that it was not a controlled demolition.

You are, in effect, claiming that you and "millions" of other people (prove that, why don't you) are better at seeing "The Truth" than the experts.

You are thus claiming that studying structural engineering, demolitions, and failure analysis actually makes you stupider.

By your logic, a newborn child should be king.

Ans) ETA (in my opinion) The several videos of the wtc7 collapse are the proof. That's not just my opinion but the opinion of an ever increasing number of people world wide.
There is no proof that wyc7 collapsed due to fire, on the contrary, NIST tryed to prove that fire brought down wtc7 and could not.
Please note: the NIST hypothesis makes no mention of the debreis damage, only the fire.
People here site the opinions of fire fighters and others as proof/evidence

Emphasis added. You are lying. The NIST WTC 7 report discusses debris damage on pages 13-20, with photographs included.

Ans) In my opinion and the opinion of millions of others wtc7 was a CD
It takes weeks to rig a bldg. for a CD
Therefore: prior knowledge
Since neither side has proof (other than the videos) we are all expressing opinions.

Your opinion is in no way equivalent to the official theory. Yours violates several laws of physics, requires unobtainable materials, would have been easy to detect afterwards, and could not have taken place without complicity of thousands of ordinary people. The official theory does not. You have not even managed to cast doubt on the official theory.

Ans) Yes. I have done a lot of research on the subject and the official explination is full of holes. There are meny qualified people, who have no reason to lie, that believe as i do.

Please identify these holes.

Please identify these "qualified people," what they believe, and why you feel they are qualified.

Thank you for your inteligent, non abusive responce.

I have done my best to be non-abusive. You will get no name-calling from me. However, you have brought no evidence, and you have lied about the official theory -- I cannot make it any plainer than that.

 

[Belz...]

You don't have to be an expert to know a CD when you see one.

No, but you should be better at it.

 

[rwguinn]

http://www.koat.com/education/9788744/detail.html
obviously, a Controlled Demolition! A "loud Boom" was heard and the roof collapsed! There must have been explosives in there!

 

[Christopher7]

R Mackey: I was wrong about the NIST report mentioning the debris damage.
I was refering to the summary on pg 50 but i was wrong . They refered to the debris damage there too.
I apologise and i stand corrected.

However in re-reading the report i noticed a cunndrum.

On pg 8: Note the location of the lobby is in the area supposidly destroyed by debris.
On pg 18: "Damage to the south face was described by a number or individuals. While the accounts are mostly consistent, there are some conflicting descriptions:
-middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south face was gouged out from floor 10 to the ground
-
-
-
At 12:10 to 12:15 p.m.:
* Firefighters found individuals on floors 7 & 8 and led them out of the building
*
*
* No heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited, primairly white dust coating and black wires hanging from celing areas were observed

 

[Sentinel]

Question

What is the equal G-force at 10.000 ft per minute?

I saw "Inside The Towers" the other night and there was a scene at West St just south of Liberty when there was a strange Popping sound like multi gunshots at the same time the south tower came down.


Can anyone tell me what the loud popping sound was?


Take care


Sentinel

 

[Pardalis]

Sentinel, you are aware that "Inside the Towers" was shot by a film crew, 5 years after the events right?

... right?

 

[Gravy]

It all comes back to the 5 second video of WTC7 falling straight down.

Since "that's what it all comes back to," perhaps you can refer me to that video. I haven't seen it.

 

[Gravy]

No heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited, primairly white dust coating and black wires hanging from celing areas were observed

Which exit were they using? Here's what JREFer NDBoston, who worked in WTC 7, says:

Hi everyone:

First of all it's my first post in here. I've been lurking for some time and after a long wait to get activated, here I am.

This is personal for me. I worked for SSB at 7WTC on 9-11. After seeing debris hit our building and taking 45 minutes to get down we had to go out the back of the building because of sooo much debris in front blocking the entrance.

I also lost many friends from Cantor who had just left my company to go over there. To deal with these CT's and their theories drives me insane. Little did I know that I missed the demolition people wiring my building for months and I didn't notice.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1719623&postcount=147

Another report, after the north tower collapsed:

For instance, Dr. Guttenberg and Dr. Asaeda, who were at 7 World Trade Center, they got trapped in there and had to like climb in and out and get out because that building also became very damaged supposedly and they were there. We thought they were dead. I guess he was in an area where Commissioner Tierney might have been, I believe. I think she was in 7 also. –Paramedic Manuel Delgado http://tinyurl.com/oyl85

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

10 000 (feet per minute) = 50.8 meters per second
Now, assuming they are talking about acceleration, and not speed (therefore looking at 50.8 m/s^2) we are looking at ~5.13 g.

 

[Gravy]

Can anyone tell me what the loud popping sound was?

Probably electrical shorts. EMT Patricia Ondrovic reports similar popping sounds and flashes coming from the lobby of building 6. Although she believed that it looked like demolitions explosives, she described the sound as like "lightbulbs popping," and of course no explosives went off there: several people were in the WTC 6 lobby at the time.

Listen to an actual building demolition here: http://tinyurl.com/fmf9e Remember that since the WTC buildings weren't prepped and strategically weakened, as is done with a normal demolition, much larger charges would need to be used.

Sentinel, please describe, in as much detail as possible, what should have been seen and heard at the base of the towers as they began to collapse.