Miragememories: step right up to the WTC7 challenge

CHF

Illuminator
CHF
Joined
Oct 12, 2006
Messages
3,871
If WTC7 was a demolition, please explain how the FDNY could have known it would collapse yet not be involved in the execution and/or coverup.

Firefighters have been quite straighforward about this issue. They claim that WTC7 was heavily damaged and that they knew it would collapse as a result.

Yet you maintain it was a demolition.

You claim:

They saw what happened to WTC 1 & 2 and they were pre-disposed to accept the same from WTC7. I'm sure if I had been a firefighter on the scene I would have made the same claim.
Click to expand...
Really?

And why would they expect WTC7 to collapse? It wasn't hit by a plane. It looked nothing like the WTC tower damage.

Do explain your WTC7 demolition scenario to me.
 
Last edited:
dont forget to :

1) provide proof of Controlled Demolition (evidence in the way of explosives residue, detonation cord)
2) describe the timeline to which the explosives were put into place (was it during the time that the building was fully engulfed? thereby exposing those who placed the explosives in place, to unncessary harm because of heat? Or was it before 9/11? then explain why no one who worked in that building saw the core columns being drilled in to place the explosives in)
 
Don't forget how they also used explosives that do not create sound. Not one recorded sound from any of the news crews standing withing blocks of the building. Oh yeah I forgot about Rock S and his video picking up the sounds from 2 miles away that nobody could here standing within 100 yards.:rolleyes:
 
Wow!

I'm honoured!

I'm almost as famous as Binglybert Slaptyback.

I'll reply shortly but I have pevious commitments to attend to and it takes time to reply..even though I know no on has any intention of paying attention to my response.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
Wow!

I'm honoured!

I'm almost as famous as Binglybert Slaptyback.

I'll reply shortly but I have pevious commitments to attend to and it takes time to reply..even though I know no on has any intention of paying attention to my response.

MM
Click to expand...

Any facts? No,

Ignored as an idiot until you produce some.
 
Miragememories said:
Like I care about your opinion stateofgrace.

Your avatar says it all.

MM
Click to expand...

Really? So why reply ? you have an ignore function, simply click it and I will disappear.

Or even better head off to LCF and spew your drivel there, I'm sure they will lap it up.
 
CHF said:
If WTC7 was a demolition, please explain how the FDNY could have known it would collapse yet not be involved in the execution and/or coverup.
Click to expand...

Good question CHF.

First of all, I think it no longer matters really if the NYFD predicted WTC7 would collapse or not. I certainly have too much respect and admiration for firefighters to evenly remotely suggest that they would have been involved in any deliberate attempt to bring about the collapse of WTC7. As I've explained before, the statements from the firefighters were a logical expectation given the events of the day. Never before had any firefighter witnessed what happed on 9/11. The world's tallest buildings collapsed against their expectations and tragically cost the lives of over 300 of their fellow firefighters. Once their beliefs had been shaken, it's not too surprising that they readily accepted the possibility that other buildings suffering from impact damage and fire could collapse.

The truly significant issue is the nature of the collapse. The firefighters, not one of them, ever indicated they expected WTC7 would collapse the way it did.

For this reason, I see absolutely no justification to believe that firefighters were involved in the execution or coverup of the WTC7 demolition. It would never occur to me to suggest such a despicable thing.

CHF said:
Firefighters have been quite straighforward about this issue. They claim that WTC7 was heavily damaged and that they knew it would collapse as a result.
Click to expand...

Yes but they were very uncertain about when and how. Their expectation of a collapse covered several hours. The actual collapse took several seconds. I don't think you can make the valid assumption that one expectation equated to the other.

CHF said:
Yet you maintain it was a demolition.

You claim:

Really?

And why would they expect WTC7 to collapse? It wasn't hit by a plane. It looked nothing like the WTC tower damage.

Do explain your WTC7 demolition scenario to me.
Click to expand...

It always come down to a question best answered by those who actually performed the act. Like I said, the firefighter's expectations of a collapse, whether valid or not was irrelevant. Firefighters have a primary goal of saving lives and avoiding undue risk to themselves and the public. Obviously after the earlier events of 9/11 and the loss of 300+ of their own people, they would prudently adjust their expectations with any error in favour of caution.

As for my describing the WTC7 demolition scenario, I know that it was possible and I know that the evidence indicates that it occured. Speculating on the details when I know my audience refuses to consider the possibility of a controlled demolition is just leaving the door open to more mockery of my response.

I think not. Believe whatever makes it easier for you to sleep soundly.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
I know that it was possible and I know that the evidence indicates that it occured.
Click to expand...

For the umpteenth time: produce your evidence that WTC7 was a controlled demolition? What evidence indicates a controlled demolition occurred?

If you still can't produce evidence in answer to those questions: why do you insist on believing such hogwash?
 
Miragememories said:
As I've explained before, the statements from the firefighters were a logical expectation given the events of the day.
Click to expand...

But why would they suspect WTC7 to fall?

The damage it sustained looked nothing like the WTC towers.

For the past few years you twoofers have been telling us how WTC7's collapse was out of the blue and unexpected. After all, it wasn't hit by a plane, it didn't have serious fires. Right?

Besides, was the FDNY transit reading faulty? That was one of the reasons they thought WTC7 would come down: the transit showed the building was unstable. So did they misread it?

The firefighters saw clear indications of structural failure. There's no way around this, MM.

Are you suggesting that they incorrectly thoughtWTC7 was structurally unstable when it really wasn't and that the conspirators then blew the building up and the FDNY then assumed it was due to that structural instability that they had actually not seen?

The truly significant issue is the nature of the collapse. The firefighters, not one of them, ever indicated they expected WTC7 would collapse the way it did.
Click to expand...
The FDNY knew it would come down and when it did I don't seem to recall a whole lot of surprise.

I didn't hear any of them say "damn, I didn't think it would fall like that!" Did you?

As for my describing the WTC7 demolition scenario, I know that it was possible and I know that the evidence indicates that it occured.
Click to expand...
Do explain. I'm still waiting to hear how this demolition was so quiet.
 
Last edited:
Miragememories said:
The truly significant issue is the nature of the collapse. The firefighters, not one of them, ever indicated they expected WTC7 would collapse the way it did.
Click to expand...

Yeah, totally. I would have expected every last one of them to say : "Let's clear out of here people...this building is gonna sustain a gravity driven collapse all the way to the ground, falling straight down at nearly freefall speed...."

Give me a break.

As for the rest of your post, it seems you've admitted that the firefighters knew the building was in serious danger of failure, and in some cases were sure it was "coming down", and that none were surprised by its collapse. That's a lot more than most Troofers will admit. Just take this knowledge a little further....you're almost there. Think Spain.
 
Last edited:
apathoid said:
Yeah, totally. I would have expected every last one of them to say : "Let's clear out of here people...this building is gonna sustain a gravity driven collapse all the way to the ground, falling straight down at nearly freefall speed...."

Give me a break.

As for the rest of your post, it seems you've admitted that the firefighters knew the building was in serious danger of failure, and in some cases were sure it was "coming down", and that none were not surprised by its collapse. That's a lot more than most Troofers will admit. Just take this knowledge a little further....you're almost there. Think Spain.
Click to expand...

Psst. I think you made a typo there and meant to say "none were suprised by its collapse" rather than "none were not surprised by its collapse". Normally, I would not point this out because it should be obvious to everyone what you meant, but since it's MM you're dealing with here...
 
Miragememories said:
Good question CHF.

First of all, I think it no longer matters really if the NYFD predicted WTC7 would collapse or not. I certainly have too much respect and admiration for firefighters to evenly remotely suggest that they would have been involved in any deliberate attempt to bring about the collapse of WTC7. As I've explained before, the statements from the firefighters were a logical expectation given the events of the day. Never before had any firefighter witnessed what happed on 9/11. The world's tallest buildings collapsed against their expectations and tragically cost the lives of over 300 of their fellow firefighters. Once their beliefs had been shaken, it's not too surprising that they readily accepted the possibility that other buildings suffering from impact damage and fire could collapse.

The truly significant issue is the nature of the collapse. The firefighters, not one of them, ever indicated they expected WTC7 would collapse the way it did.

For this reason, I see absolutely no justification to believe that firefighters were involved in the execution or coverup of the WTC7 demolition. It would never occur to me to suggest such a despicable thing.



Yes but they were very uncertain about when and how. Their expectation of a collapse covered several hours. The actual collapse took several seconds. I don't think you can make the valid assumption that one expectation equated to the other.



It always come down to a question best answered by those who actually performed the act. Like I said, the firefighter's expectations of a collapse, whether valid or not was irrelevant. Firefighters have a primary goal of saving lives and avoiding undue risk to themselves and the public. Obviously after the earlier events of 9/11 and the loss of 300+ of their own people, they would prudently adjust their expectations with any error in favour of caution.

As for my describing the WTC7 demolition scenario, I know that it was possible and I know that the evidence indicates that it occured. Speculating on the details when I know my audience refuses to consider the possibility of a controlled demolition is just leaving the door open to more mockery of my response.

I think not. Believe whatever makes it easier for you to sleep soundly.

MM
Click to expand...

Dude, you completely avoided the question.

Wuss.
 
MM, I can just ask a hypothetical question - if WTC7 was not a CD and collapsed due to damage sustained during the event, what would you have expected the firefighters to say about the collapse?

Cheers,
TGHO
 
These firefighters who were, unlike our resident CTs here, actually on the scene that day and who expressed their concern that the building was severly damaged and about to fail must be a serious thorn in the side to all these armchair investigators.

I would think that if indeed one was really interested in the truth these firefighters would be interviewed.

So. MM. Can you please direct me to any links where these firefighters are interviewed by you folks about what they saw?
 
Last edited:
twinstead said:
These firefighters who were, unlike our resident CTs here, actually on the scene that day and who expressed their concern that the building was severly damaged and about to fail must be a serious thorn in the side to all these armchair investigators.
Click to expand...

Indeed.

You just know that twoofers would love to patch up this problem by simply accusing the FDNY of covering up the demolition. It would fit right in with "pull it" and would explain their foreknowledge of the collapse.

And it's not like twoofers don't often patch up holes in their theories with "they were paid off" or "they're working for Bush."

But it's a little tougher in the case of the FDNY; hense the increasingly absurd WTC7 theories.

In MM's case it's "I respect the FDNY and they thought they saw structural damage but it was actually just their expectations in light of the towers coming down."

Makes no sense at all, but it's either that or having to admit to WTC7s unstable condition prior to collapse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom