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

[boloboffin]

I have a video in my collection (only aired once on TV, AFAIK) that was shot by a woman in her apartment building of a crowd of people stampeding from the South Tower collapse, and then the dust cloud hitting her open window, glass breaking, and her scrambling out of her room and up the staircase to higher floors to find breathable air, yelling for people to keep their doors closed if they have good air. After going up one or two floors, another woman comes out of her apartment crying, "What's happening?" And the woman with the video camera said, "The World Trade Center's blown up."

She saw the building come down and her building was caught in the enveloping dust cloud. In that traumatic moment, she had no knowledge of how the building came down, whether by explosives or a collapse. But to her, it was blown up. The building was all over the place, in the air they breathed.

I think the person saying that 7 World Trade was about to "blow up" was invoking the image of the towers collapsing in order to move people along. This video clip verifies that it was perfectly natural to describe the collapses of the towers as "blowing up." Thanks.

 

[Myriad]

Hmmm. Seems that theauthor has chosen to ignore your post Myriad. I wonder why this is?

I believe it's for the same reason he chooses to ignore all my other posts. This drawing illustrates the general principle involved:

http://hometown.aol.com/masterslyceum/images/worm-maze.jpg

Just think of the left branch as "attempt usual smart-ass rebuttal" and the right branch as "completely ignore Myriad's point." The rest of the analogy is self-evident, I think.

However, whether he addresses the point or not, the fact is that "blow up" is firefighting jargon for a particular type of event that very well might have threatened to happen at WTC7 at that time. It's also used metaphorically by firefighters and others (I've heard it used by economists, for example) to refer to a deteriorating situation presenting increasing danger.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Tomblvd]

I think the last few posts of ta illustrates his mindset perfectly. His entire thinking of 9-11 revolves around conspiracy, he doesn't even recall the incredible chaos and confusion of those first hours and days and how nothing was certain. Out of that carnage he cherry picks sentence fragments from people in the process of being attacked as some sort of evidence of a conspiracy.

 

[Elizabeth I]

I think the last few posts of ta illustrates his mindset perfectly. His entire thinking of 9-11 revolves around conspiracy, he doesn't even recall the incredible chaos and confusion of those first hours and days and how nothing was certain. Out of that carnage he cherry picks sentence fragments from people in the process of being attacked as some sort of evidence of a conspiracy.

It's been seven years since 9-11, so it's quite possible TA was too young at the time to remember what it was like. If he's even fourteen or fifteen, that would make him seven or eight on 9/11/01, old enough to remember that the grown-ups were all upset, but not to really absorb the details.

 

[Tomblvd]

It's been seven years since 9-11, so it's quite possible TA was too young at the time to remember what it was like. If he's even fourteen or fifteen, that would make him seven or eight on 9/11/01, old enough to remember that the grown-ups were all upset, but not to really absorb the details.

It has been a while, hasn't it? Although I should point out that he claims in an earlier post "i have watched all the coverage and NOBODY claims that at least 20,000 were killed."

He is a unapologetic liar.

 

[nicepants]

It has been a while, hasn't it? Although I should point out that he claims in an earlier post "i have watched all the coverage and NOBODY claims that at least 20,000 were killed."

He is a unapologetic liar.

Indeed. "All the coverage" would have to include every second of coverage from every network. So just picking the majors: ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, as well as CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews, etc...either TA had 7 tvs going prior to the first tower being hit, or he/she has the most complete recorded collection of news coverage of any single event in history.

I'm with you, Tom, I smell BS. I don't expect TA to be back to explain it.

 

[Tomblvd]

Indeed. "All the coverage" would have to include every second of coverage from every network. So just picking the majors: ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, as well as CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews, etc...either TA had 7 tvs going prior to the first tower being hit, or he/she has the most complete recorded collection of news coverage of any single event in history.

I'm with you, Tom, I smell BS. I don't expect TA to be back to explain it.

Let's not forget that some networks not normally broadcasting news (and I don't remember which ones) showed the BBC and SkyNews coverage.

For some reason I spent a lot of time watching their coverage.

 

[theauthor]

He was referring to Stuyvesant High School. Firefighters and cops said their was a bomb in the school that morning.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2Us6hwc5EY

Note in the video you posted we don't see the person who said, "this building is about it blow up", it's a voice over.

The high school bomb thing was befor the towers came down. Have you got any proof?

 

[bio]

Now, Brad, why on earth would you trot out your silly, thoroughly debunked falsehoods again? AS YOU KNOW, Protec had seismic devices in place throughout the WTC complex. AS YOU KNOW, there isn't a single firefighter who swallows the fantasies of your evil, brain-dead movement. AS YOU KNOW, Barry Jennings turned out to be a tad less than you liars hoped for.

Do you enjoy these beatings?

Brad said: "The seismic argument is debunked by the controlled demolition industry itself as they have the technology to CD a building without seismic registration."

How can you debunk him, when you say: "Protec had seismic devices in place throughout the WTC complex".

Wheater there were devices or not is irrelevant, because the controlled demolition industry has the technology to CD a building without seismic registration.

Am I evil, brain-dead, too? Perhabs you have more information, instead...

 

[twinstead]

Wheater there were devices or not is irrelevant, because the controlled demolition industry has the technology to CD a building without seismic registration.

Perhaps Implosionworld is in on the plot?

 

[Tomblvd]

The high school bomb thing was befor the towers came down. Have you got any proof?

Why bother?

You keep asking for proof, keep getting it, and then keep ignoring it.

Are you going to apologize to Jonnyclueless
for calling him a liar?

Are you going to admit you were wrong?

 

[jhunter1163]

Wheater there were devices or not is irrelevant, because the controlled demolition industry has the technology to CD a building without seismic registration.

I smell a new product.... CUSHABOOM™! It destroys your building, but gently lays the pieces on the ground with NO SEISMIC SIGNATURE! Great for sinister uses! Easily planted by only a few minions in a few hours' time!

CUSHABOOM™ is available at NWO Supply Central and online at eviloverlord.com.

 

[Russ_Dalton]

Um, different sizes, different positioning, different distance, different recording devices, different compiling method, different video delivery, etc.

There were lots of differences, but let me ask you: what did they all have in common?

Or better yet: how many of them (that had audio at all) were silent?



This question is so horribly written that I can't even guess at what you're trying to ask, and I don't want to give you a response in the traditional sense so much as I want to shove a middle school grammar and vocabulary textbook in your face. Try writing that again.

(1) Do you notice a difference in location of explosives ? Do you see differences in flashes? Do you notice a difference in sounds ?

(2) What was your point on seismic recordings you made earlier?

 

[Russ_Dalton]

Gee, maybe I made it up. Or maybe you're another lazy kid who is new to this conspiracy crap and hasn't read a goddamned thing.

Start with Brent Blanchard's Protec paper and the various sources linked to by Mark Roberts.

wtc7lies.googlepages.com/introduction"]http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/introduction

So there are 2 controlled demolition experts. One says WTC7 is a CD and other says its not.
Why would I want to believe one over another?
Shouldn't they all agree on one opinion?

 

[jhunter1163]

So there are 2 controlled demolition experts. One says WTC7 is a CD and other says its not.
Why would I want to believe one over another?
Shouldn't they all agree on one opinion?

Wrong. Every demolition expert in the world EXCEPT ONE says WTC7 was not a CD. And the one who DID say it was a CD was misled by Twoofers and will not now discuss the matter at all.

 

[Russ_Dalton]

As I've been saying, there are also many statements from that day that over 20,000 people died.

Where are the bodies?

So whats the criteria for trusting an eyewitness?

 

[Russ_Dalton]

Wrong. Every demolition expert in the world EXCEPT ONE says WTC7 was not a CD. And the one who DID say it was a CD was misled by Twoofers and will not now discuss the matter at all.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/introduction

I know, I know, he's one of the NWO black ops sent out to mislead and deceive the sheeple.

Read it anyway. Just give it a try. You never know.

So a CD "expert" can be misled?
Shouldn't all CD experts agree on one opinion?

 

[DGM]

So there are 2 controlled demolition experts. One says WTC7 is a CD and other says its not.
Why would I want to believe one over another?
Shouldn't they all agree on one opinion?

Because according to you guy's the one that thinks it is was is only right 1/3 of the time.

 

[Tomblvd]

So whats the criteria for trusting an eyewitness?

Corroborating evidence.

 

[Russ_Dalton]

No, there are not. The only eyewitness that talks about bombs and explosives is Mr. William Rodriguez, and his account, if true, would refer to the period before impact, and have no bearing at all on the collapses.

All of the other accounts, if you read them carefully, accurately, and in context, do not describe bombs or explosives at all. As another poster noted, the concept of "simile" is essential here, but evidently lacking in your analysis.

I have also explained to you personally how to differentiate the sounds. Stop asking the same question over and over again.

Incorrect.
Copy paste the link below to see a fireman say bomb in the building (I cannot add URLs yet)
youtube.com/watch?v=W53wdu8IGlE

or google.video.com - "Fireman: Bomb In The Building"