• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

BBC and WTC 7 on 9/11: confusion or NWO-blunder?

gumboot said:
But if you believe WTC7 was a controlled demolition, you must believe the FDNY were in on it. There's no leeway in this.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...


I can smell the desperation. Out comes the firemen are in on it strawman. We must be onto something.
 
gumboot said:
But if you believe WTC7 was a controlled demolition, you must believe the FDNY were in on it. There's no leeway in this.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...


I can smell the desperation. Out comes the firemen are in on it strawman. We must be onto something.
 
gumboot said:
But if you believe WTC7 was a controlled demolition, you must believe the FDNY were in on it. There's no leeway in this.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...


I can smell the desperation. Out comes the firemen are in on it strawman. We must be onto something.
 
Aphelion said:
I can smell the desperation. Out comes the firemen are in on it strawman. We must be onto something.
Click to expand...


It's not a strawman. I'm very serious. FDNY said they were expecting the building to collapse because it was unstable, had massive structural damage, was burning on all floors, creaking, on a lean, and starting to bulge. They were so convinced that it was going to collapse that they evacuated the area and made a collapse zone around it. They also told everyone it was going to collapse - hence things like the BBC article.

So.

Either they are telling the truth, and WTC7 collapsed due to damage caused by the collapse of WTC1 and extensive fires

OR

The FDNY are lying and actually it was demolished by controlled demolition, in which case the FDNY are in on it (at the very least, by intentionally lying about the expected collapse).

So, which is it?

-Gumboot
 
gumboot said:
It's not a strawman. I'm very serious. FDNY said they were expecting the building to collapse because it was unstable, had massive structural damage, was burning on all floors, creaking, on a lean, and starting to bulge. They were so convinced that it was going to collapse that they evacuated the area and made a collapse zone around it. They also told everyone it was going to collapse - hence things like the BBC article.

So.

Either they are telling the truth, and WTC7 collapsed due to damage caused by the collapse of WTC1 and extensive fires

OR

The FDNY are lying and actually it was demolished by controlled demolition, in which case the FDNY are in on it (at the very least, by intentionally lying about the expected collapse).

So, which is it?

-Gumboot
Click to expand...


Collapse zones are standard around any high rise fire. Nobody died in building 7 so what crime are the firefighters in on?
 
Aphelion said:
Collapse zones are standard around any high rise fire. Nobody died in building 7 so what crime are the firefighters in on?
Click to expand...


It wasn't just a collapse zone. Many firemen explicitly and clearly stated that the building was going to collapse. It was a matter of when, not if.

It's not actually relevant whether they were committing a crime (although in the example of the 9/11 CTs the crime would be treason and conspiracy to commit murder, amongst others). Legal or otherwise, either WTC7 collapsed due to damage and fire, or the FDNY were involved in demolishing it.

So enough playing around. Grow some minerals and actually stand for something. Which is it? Natural collapse, or CD?

-Gumboot
 
Aphelion said:
I can smell the desperation. Out comes the firemen are in on it strawman. We must be onto something.
Click to expand...

The FDNY said the building was in danger of collapse from structual failure and pulled their men back.

THEY KNEW IT WOULD COLLAPSE!

So how can you think the FDNY wasn't "in on it" if it was a demolition?
 
gumboot said:
It wasn't just a collapse zone. Many firemen explicitly and clearly stated that the building was going to collapse. It was a matter of when, not if.

It's not actually relevant whether they were committing a crime (although in the example of the 9/11 CTs the crime would be treason and conspiracy to commit murder, amongst others). Legal or otherwise, either WTC7 collapsed due to damage and fire, or the FDNY were involved in demolishing it.

So enough playing around. Grow some minerals and actually stand for something. Which is it? Natural collapse, or CD?

-Gumboot
Click to expand...


It was CD. This video absolutely proves it.
 
Aphelion said:
Yes they must have. But nobody died in 7 so what difference does it make?
Click to expand...


It makes a difference because it means the FDNY a complicit in a cover-up to lie about what actually happened on 9/11. You do recall that over 10% of those killed on 9/11 were members of FDNY, yes?

So, you're saying they intentionally and willingly participated in a cover-up of the murder of their fellow firemen.

Why?

-Gumboot
 
Aphelion said:
Yes they must have. But nobody died in 7 so what difference does it make?
Click to expand...

Gee you sure went from "strawman!" to "yes they must have" pretty quickly.

Obviously you knew the strawman argument was BS from the get go.

So here's where we stand: WTC7's "demolition" is a part of the 9/11 inside job attack.

You've thus implicated the firefighters in the coverup of 9/11.

Your dad must be so proud.
 
Aphelion said:
I can smell the desperation. Out comes the firemen are in on it strawman. We must be onto something.
Click to expand...
Aphelion said:
It was CD. This video absolutely proves it.
Click to expand...
Alright. Hold on here, folks...

I believe Aphelion is yanking our chains now. He's been at least a reasonable sort of stupid before, but this is a rather sudden shift toward a pure "drinking the Kool-Aid" type of insanity and very stereotypical of most "truthers".

I believe he's playing to that stereotype just to get a rise out of us.
 
CHF said:
Gee you sure went from "strawman!" to "yes they must have" pretty quickly.

Obviously you knew the strawman argument was BS from the get go.

So here's where we stand: WTC7's "demolition" is a part of the 9/11 inside job attack.

You've thus implicated the firefighters in the coverup of 9/11.

Your dad must be so proud.
Click to expand...


When did I say wtc7 was part of the 911 inside job?
 
gumboot said:
It makes a difference because it means the FDNY a complicit in a cover-up to lie about what actually happened on 9/11. You do recall that over 10% of those killed on 9/11 were members of FDNY, yes?

So, you're saying they intentionally and willingly participated in a cover-up of the murder of their fellow firemen.

Why?

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

No im suggesting they were told that 7 was being taken down so that they could continue rescue efforts.
 
Aphelion said:
When did I say wtc7 was part of the 911 inside job?
Click to expand...

So they demolished WTC7 via controlled demolition and it wasn't part of an inside job? And the FDNY wasn't in on it?

I sure love watching twoofers stumbling over themselves trying to argue CD of WTC7 without implicating the FDNY.

It's both hilarious and pathetic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom