• 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.

Here is one rescue worker who was "in on it"

theauthor said:
So why would he use the phrase "blow up"? Whether he turned out to be right or wrong, what was behind his use of that phrase?

If you were a professional in that situation where 2 towers have already collapsed, would you casually go around telling civilians that buildings were about to blow up?
Click to expand...

This is utterly irrelevant. WTC 7 did not blow up. I already pointed this out to you once.
 
"Blow up" is computer science jargon for nonlinear behavior in computer models causing values to increase or diverge so radically as to cause overflows. (Source: http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/B/blow-up.html)

So apparently, he was commenting on the difficulty future researchers would have in running accurate computer models of the building collapse that was about to occur.

(Hey, a fireman using computer science jargon makes as much sense as a real estate entrepreneur using demolition jargon -- and in this case, at least the jargon in question really exists.)

Or perhaps there's also a firefighting jargon meaning of the phrase "blow up" that has nothing to do with explosives or explosions? Nah, couldn't be.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
theauthor said:
How do you know this when the final report hasn't been released?
Click to expand...

The NIST WTC 7 report is hardly the only source of information. We know there were no sounds or seismic indications of explosives. We also know the building visibly degraded, slowly, hours before it collapsed. We also know that, in the professional opinion of firefighters on scene, both well before the collapse and to this day, the structure was in danger of collapse due to the damage it suffered, and the ongoing fires.

That's how I know.

What you are attempting to do is claim that, since this person said "blow up," then there were explosives involved. But we already know there weren't. There's no reason to consider this at all.
 
theauthor said:
So why would he use the phrase "blow up"? Whether he turned out to be right or wrong, what was behind his use of that phrase?
Click to expand...
It's a figure of speech.

If you were a professional in that situation where 2 towers have already collapsed, would you casually go around telling civilians that buildings were about to blow up?
Click to expand...
Most likely.
 
theauthor said:
How do you know this when the final report hasn't been released?
Click to expand...

This is a friendly advice from me: Please, stop and think about what you're saying here. We don't need the report to tell us whether or not the building "blew up". Everybody who saw it knows it collapsed. There is a pretty huge difference...

Now, concerning what made the building collapse, then we should wait for the report. Even though the pretty obvious answer is fires and structural damage.
 
Myriad said:
"Blow up" is computer science jargon for nonlinear behavior in computer models causing values to increase or diverge so radically as to cause overflows. (Source: http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/B/blow-up.html)

So apparently, he was commenting on the difficulty future researchers would have in running accurate computer models of the building collapse that was about to occur.

(Hey, a fireman using computer science jargon makes as much sense as a real estate entrepreneur using demolition jargon -- and in this case, at least the jargon in question really exists.)

Or perhaps there's also a firefighting jargon meaning of the phrase "blow up" that has nothing to do with explosives or explosions? Nah, couldn't be.

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

Nice find Myriad. Does that answer your question theauthor?
 
R.Mackey said:
The NIST WTC 7 report is hardly the only source of information. We know there were no sounds or seismic indications of explosives. We also know the building visibly degraded, slowly, hours before it collapsed. We also know that, in the professional opinion of firefighters on scene, both well before the collapse and to this day, the structure was in danger of collapse due to the damage it suffered, and the ongoing fires.

That's how I know.

What you are attempting to do is claim that, since this person said "blow up," then there were explosives involved. But we already know there weren't. There's no reason to consider this at all.
Click to expand...


How exactly do we know there were no sounds? There were people who described hearing such sounds. One described it as like a clap of thunder before the building caved out.
 
theauthor said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9CXQY-bZn4

"We are walking back because the building is about to blow up"

How did he know building 7 was about to "blow up"?
Click to expand...


Weren't you complaining last nite about how we were "disrespecting the fallen heroes" by not taking a firefighter's hyperbolic statement at face value?

And now your're accusing one of them of being in on the conspiracy?

All that on top of multiple statements about how people in the military are stupid.

You're having a bad 24 hours.
 
theauthor said:
No, it isn't a figure of speech. Can you find me a single example anywhere, apart from this one, where someone describes the collapse of a building as "blowing up"?
Click to expand...

The Urban Dictionary (warning: Vulgar content!) lists a multitude of figures of speech for "blow up," many of which have absolutely nothing to do with explosives.

In particular, note the link to the term "implode." Implosion is an adequate description of the WTC 7 collapse, and was so used by FEMA in its report.

And, anticipating the obvious retort, implosions can occur without any explosive devices whatsoever, particularly in heavily damaged structures.
 
R.Mackey said:
The NIST WTC 7 report is hardly the only source of information. We know there were no sounds or seismic indications of explosives. We also know the building visibly degraded, slowly, hours before it collapsed. We also know that, in the professional opinion of firefighters on scene, both well before the collapse and to this day, the structure was in danger of collapse due to the damage it suffered, and the ongoing fires.

.
Click to expand...

What we know is the majority of firefighters and other FDNY personnel on the scene were told that bldg would collapse, not that they all agreed collapse was imminent.

You know better.
 
theauthor said:
How exactly do we know there were no sounds? There were people who described hearing such sounds. One described it as like a clap of thunder before the building caved out.
Click to expand...

That sound is not consistent with explosive demolition.

The characteristic is the firecracker-string of separate explosions, all in rapid sequence. Or very large explosions that occur well before any motion of the structure. Neither of these were reported by anyone, nor do they appear on any of the numerous videos, with full audio, of the collapse.

That's how, exactly, we know.
 
RedIbis said:
What we know is the majority of firefighters and other FDNY personnel on the scene were told that bldg would collapse, not that they all agreed collapse was imminent.

You know better.
Click to expand...

What a disingenuous statement. "A majority" is not sufficient. The explosives theory, which does not require firefighter opinion for refutation since the physical evidence alone does this -- I only throw it in for corroboration -- would require all firefighters to have been told, not just "a majority."

Furthermore, as you've already been explained to, of course they were told. Disasters require coordination. That includes telling people things that should be totally obvious, just in case, so they don't do something stupid.

If you could find me firefighters who were told it would collapse but disagreed with that assessment based on their own feelings, that might be worth exploration. Alas, you cannot.
 
If the members of the "Truth Movement" ever learn what is meant by
"simile" and metaphor" and how they were used when eyewitnesses to WTC
described what they saw, the entire movement would blow away in a
pyroclastic cloud with a noise like a freight train.
 
theauthor said:
No, it isn't a figure of speech. Can you find me a single example anywhere, apart from this one, where someone describes the collapse of a building as "blowing up"?
Click to expand...

Based on what happened that day I could easily understand people using hyperboles or jumping to conclusions... There are countless accounts of explosions and people thinking at first that they were bombs, however considering the uniqueness of the situation I find it hardly surprising...

There's a difference between reaction to a major situation and bluntly stating with absolute certainty that there were actually bombs...

theauthor said:
How exactly do we know there were no sounds? There were people who described hearing such sounds. One described it as like a clap of thunder before the building caved out.
Click to expand...

People were describing the sound of people hitting the pavement as bombs, and loud explosions. Can you imagine the noise of hearing a 1-acre plane of concrete slamming into another 1-acre plane of concrete?
 
RedIbis said:
What we know is the majority of firefighters and other FDNY personnel on the scene were told that bldg would collapse, not that they all agreed collapse was imminent.

You know better.
Click to expand...

So. I know you are going to die. I may not know what day but I know you will.
 
MarkyX said:
How do I know he is even talking about WTC7? What is his name? The video was provided by a 9/11 denier, so the uploader could've easily spliced it, which looks like he did.
Click to expand...


Stop grasping at straws. He said that, amongst other things, on the CNN video. Nobody has spliced anything. If you want to claim they have then provide proof.
 
BigAl said:
If the members of the "Truth Movement" ever learn what is meant by
"simile" and metaphor" and how they were used when eyewitnesses to WTC
described what they saw, the entire movement would blow away in a
pyroclastic cloud with a noise like a freight train.
Click to expand...
You assume the want to know the truth. This is obviously not the case because if they did they would talk to this/these person/s and find out what he/she meant. Expanding the "cult" is all they want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom