• 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"

When my wife came home last night I dropped a bomb on her. She didn't expect the news at all and blew up at me.

Now I've got to spend the whole rest of the weekend cleaning blood and guts off the walls and ceiling.
 
TC329 said:
2) He has prior knowledge. This indicates that it was timed. He knew it was coming down and when it was coming down. This is not indicative of a unexpected unpredicted fire induced collapse of a steel skyscraper which there was no precedent for before 9/11. Do you disagree?

3) There is a distinct difference between "blow up" and "collapse". Do you disagree?
Click to expand...

2) The news reports I watched that day were all reporting that WTC7 was leaning dangerously and on the verge of collapse since the middle of the day. Everyone knew it was going down, they just weren't sure when.

3)Not in the middle of the largest emergency situation you've ever been involved in. I'm sure you are completely level-headed and choose your words so completely perfectly in the most dangerous of circumstances that there can be no doubt as to your meaning, but the rest of us are human.

I thought no truther "theory" could be more crazy than holographic planes and laser beams. But this one is close.
 
Russ_Dalton said:
There are eyewitnesses including firefighters talking about "bombs" and "explosives"
Click to expand...

Have a listen to how firefighter Mickey Kross describes events on 9-11 in this very brief clip below. Why is that most twoofters cannot grasp the concept of a simile or even a simple meataphor?





BV
 
If the premise in the OP were true, it would mean these rescue workers, common everyday people like you and me, somehow had been made fully aware and convinced at the time that WTC7 was going to be brought down as a controlled demolition.

If this were true, this would then mean these guys were either...
(1) involved in a WTC7 CD conspiracy, or...
(2) were not involved in a WTC7 CD conspiracy.

If (1) were true and they were IN ON IT, why would these same rescue people casually admit publicly this CD was going to take place in the first place. This does not make sense since criminals try to hide their criminal acts, not advertise them.

However, if (2) were true and they were not involved in a "WTC7 CD conspiracy", and coupled with the common knowledge that CD's require weeks to prepare, why would they admit they knew this CD was about to take place and NOT BE INCREDULOUS from that day until now THAT IT WAS A CD? This also does not make sense.

The above yields the answer to the OP:
"How did he know building 7 was about to "blow up"?

Answer: He did not know it was going to "be a controlled demoliton".
 
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...

Just to prove you wrong about it not being a figure of speech, here's a reveiw of a popular Rap artist
50 Cent was nominated for the 2004 Grammy Award for Best New Artist. GET RICH OR DIE TRYIN' was nominated for Best Rap Album. "In The Club" was nominated for Best Male Rap Solo Performance and for Best Rap Song. With its inclusion on the mega-successful 8 MILE soundtrack, 50 Cent's "Wanksta" blew up in late 2002, calling out the hypocrisies of wannabe gangstas who boast of criminal exploits that exist only in their imaginations. If anyone has the right to speak it's 50 Cent; he made his mark in the streets (not to mention newspapers) long before Eminem inked.
Click to expand...

as for your other request, as of right now, here's one example

http://pittsburgh.about.com/library/weekly/aa010101a.htm

Have you ever secretly dreamed about how it would feel to blow something up? Well, now is your chance to find out first hand. Three Rivers Stadium will come tumbling down within the next month and you could be the one who pushes the ceremonial plunger and sets off the implosion!
Click to expand...
 
TC329 said:
1) A lot of people say they're going to "blow up" a building when they demo it. Do you disagree with that?
Click to expand...

So?

TC said:
2) He has prior knowledge. This indicates that it was timed. He knew it was coming down and when it was coming down. This is not indicative of a unexpected unpredicted fire induced collapse of a steel skyscraper which there was no precedent for before 9/11. Do you disagree?
Click to expand...

So, now you are saying that FDNY was complicit. Do your truther buddies agree? Russ, the author, do you agree with this assessment?

TC said:
3) There is a distinct difference between "blow up" and "collapse". Do you disagree?
Click to expand...

Obviously you missed the 5 or so times on how blow up can be defined in firefighter jargon.
 
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...

Hmmm. Seems that theauthor has chosen to ignore your post Myriad. I wonder why this is?
 
SezMe said:
When my wife came home last night I dropped a bomb on her. She didn't expect the news at all and blew up at me.

Now I've got to spend the whole rest of the weekend cleaning blood and guts off the walls and ceiling.
Click to expand...

Lol
 
I think the stupidity od the claims in this thread are too far below my tolerance level. This is simply too "tin foil nutjob" even for me.
 
theauthor said:
How do you know this when the final report hasn't been released?
Click to expand...
Are you lost in believing the idiot ideas of 9/11 truth? When will you display rational ideas and thought on topics you start?

Russ_Dalton said:
...
So how did you differentiate sound due to bombs/explosives FROM other causes of sound such as collapse of building.
Click to expand...

With a brain, ear, and experience. How do you think people fall for the idiot ideas of 9/11 truth?
 
Last edited:
Tomblvd said:
Yet you managed to ignore every other post that proved you wrong.

Are you doing this on purpose, or are you just obtuse?
Click to expand...

I was wondering the same thing. Proof has been provided IN WRITING demonstrating what this man was describing in the video, but theauthor continues to spout the same nonsense over and over.
 
TC329 said:
1) A lot of people say they're going to "blow up" a building when they demo it. Do you disagree with that?
Click to expand...
Relevance?

TC329 said:
2) He has prior knowledge. This indicates that it was timed.
Click to expand...
Baseless assumption.


TC329 said:
He knew it was coming down
Click to expand...
It was known for hours in advance, they saw the severity of the damage unlike most of us... they would have a reasonable grasp of what was happening.


TC329 said:
and when it was coming down.
Click to expand...
Incorrect, they anticipated 'a' collapse, they evacuated hours in advance of it.

Tell me, if you 'feared' that a building might collapse would you be standing right underneath it if you didn't know for sure? Would you wait for the collapse to initiate before running? Or would you get the hell out of the way several hours before it if you yourself were unsure of when it would collapse?


TC329 said:
This is not indicative of a unexpected unpredicted fire induced collapse of a steel skyscraper which there was no precedent for before 9/11. Do you disagree?
Click to expand...

Two points:
A) How many steel buildings in history have been either struck by a jet or damaged by falling debris from a collapse of two of the tallest skyscrapers in the United States 300 ft away? None... Empire State building is the only immediate example however, steel-reinforced concrete construction does not behave the same as steel construction.

B) And the precedents used to prove that the towers should NOT have collapsed are built primarily using steel reinforced concrete construction or steel web construction. Proving a point like that doesn't help when concrete is the primary construction method... :tolleyes: And they all lack one thing that the trade centers shared in common -- impact damage


TC329 said:
3) There is a distinct difference between "blow up" and "collapse". Do you disagree?
Click to expand...

As has been repeated, context vs. not context. Simile, metaphors vs serious conjecture. There is a difference between all of them. It is human nature to use such context when there is mass chaos from a disaster.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom