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

[Grizzly Bear]

My favorites:

High pressure gas bottles can do real damage. Ask any Scuba diver for war stories. One of times in my life when I though I was about to die involved the dropping of some industrial gas bottles.

I remember mythbusters doing an experiment with oxygen tank once and they ended up launching one through a makeshift [unreinforced] masonry wall... the pressurized air isn't anything to play with XD

 

[RedIbis]

Nomination for a stundie.

Finally. I was beginning to think no one was reading my posts.

 

[RedIbis]

And you correcting him only further proves his claim. That no one saw any bombs. Thank you. He was trying to throw a bone, but you slapped it down. Thank you.

Wrong again. To paraphrase, Mackey suggested that other than Rodriguez, no one has claimed to see bombs. Rodriguez has never made such a claim. I'm waiting for Mackey to retract his statement or provide the quote where Rodriguez claims to see explosives or bombs.

 

[R.Mackey]

The point is that Mackey misrepresented his position. Never has Rodriguez claimed to have actually seen the explosives or charges.

And you correcting him only further proves his claim. That no one saw any bombs. Thank you. He was trying to throw a bone, but you slapped it down. Thank you.

Wrong again. To paraphrase, Mackey suggested that other than Rodriguez, no one has claimed to see bombs. Rodriguez has never made such a claim. I'm waiting for Mackey to retract his statement or provide the quote where Rodriguez claims to see explosives or bombs.

Everyone else seems to have understood, but I'll give it to you in my own words for sake of completeness. I know Mr. Rodriguez didn't see bombs. I know he didn't claim to see bombs, either. The only reason I bring him up is because, as far as I know, his statements are the best that you have. While he saw absolutely nothing inconsistent with the "official theory," he nonetheless actually believes there were bombs, which is insufficient but not as bad as the usual Truth Movement quote-mining -- that which attempts to claim others believe there were bombs rather than merely employing a metaphor.

I remind you that, earlier in this thread, the claim was made that witnesses statements provide evidence that bombs levelled WTC 7. I know it wasn't you who started this; then again, you didn't have to butt in either.

To support this claim, the only truly actionable witness statements would be those who actually saw bombs. Next best would be those who saw things that could only be caused by bombs. But you have neither. Not even if we expand the pool to WTC 1 and 2 as well. Not even if we also include the impacts, instead of only treating the collapses. Still none.

The claim is a lie.

In an attempt to be charitable, I'd even be faintly interested in everyone who thinks there were bombs, at any time (1993 doesn't count!), in any structure. As far as I know, the population of this group is one -- Mr. Rodriguez. I could be wrong, there could be one or two other confused folks out there. Or maybe even someone credible. Surprise me.

So, what have you got?

 

[Russ_Dalton]

It was investigated. How do you think they found out it was false?

Post it here. How did they find it wasn't explosives? When tons of eyewitnesses talked about detonations, bombs van filled with explosives.
NIST couldnt even figure out how WTC7 collapse till date and they managed to know there were no bombs?

 

[Russ_Dalton]

Nonsense.

You failed to attack the message I posted on the 1993 WTC bombing. Typical response by a biased skeptic.

 

[Russ_Dalton]

So now your claim devolves not to seeing bombs or explosives, but merely using the words.

As in "it sounded like a bomb." This is not eyewitness evidence of a bomb.

Ergo, I did not willfully choose to ignore them. They are irrelevant.

I've told you before, excepting only Mr. Rodriguez whose case is well understood, there are no eyewitnesses who claim to have seen a bomb or explosives. Zero. Nada. Zip. Zilch. If I'm wrong, show me these people. You can't, and therefore you keep trying to change the ground rules.

I posted the video of eyewitnesses who talked about explosions, van filled with explosives, and audio of explosions. Scroll back.
So if Mr. Rodriguez saw an explosive, How does it not warrant a new investigation?

 

[Russ_Dalton]

Do you willfully ignore my question? What did the rescue worker gain from being "in on it?"

Where did I made the claim? Do you willfully accuse others?

 

[Russ_Dalton]

Because when the statements are read in their context, it is clear for 99% of them that the person is speaking of the noises of a building in the process of collapsing and for the other 1%, nobody heard the same noise, and small noises are not an indication of man-made demolition of a building that is, I believe, larger than any known man-made explosive demolition by a couple orders of magnitude.

Its not for you or me to deicide if it was a bomb. A unbiased investigation would have told us. How did you rule out it wasn't a bomb?

 

[R.Mackey]

I posted the video of eyewitnesses who talked about explosions, van filled with explosives, and audio of explosions. Scroll back.
So if Mr. Rodriguez saw an explosive, How does it not warrant a new investigation?

Please read more carefully. Mr. Rodriguez DID NOT see an explosive. He felt shocks and saw damage and fireballs that he incorrectly assigned to explosives.

What you posted is bunk. There were explosions. But none of those eyewitnesses actually thinks there were bombs. Unlike you, they know that jet fuel and other things caught in fires can also deflagrate.

And there never was a van full of explosives. Ever. Mere rumour. Rumour != eyewitness reports.

 

[Russ_Dalton]

Why?

If experts disagree, something is missing.

 

[Russ_Dalton]

Yes, very interesting "theory", Sherlock. Now tell me, why are they moving out of the immediate area of that high school where the first bomb threat was, instead of staying there, if it's supposed to be in the WTC?

Wait, don't even try to come up with something retarded. See below why! Ha!



No, I am willfully ignoring YOUR NONSENSE.

So there explosive sounds all over, reports of bombs in buildings from firefighters, eyewitnesses talking bombs, explosives.
And you failed to explain it and chose to ignore it. Typical response -nonsense.

 

[Russ_Dalton]

But none of those eyewitnesses actually thinks there were bombs.

False.
There are eyewitnesses who think there were bombs.

 

[LashL]

You failed to attack the message I posted on the 1993 WTC bombing. Typical response by a biased skeptic.

I posted the video of eyewitnesses who talked about explosions, van filled with explosives, and audio of explosions. Scroll back.
So if Mr. Rodriguez saw an explosive, How does it not warrant a new investigation?

Where did I made the claim? Do you willfully accuse others?

Its not for you or me to deicide if it was a bomb. A unbiased investigation would have told us. How did you rule out it wasn't a bomb?

If experts disagree, something is missing.

So there explosive sounds all over, reports of bombs in buildings from firefighters, eyewitnesses talking bombs, explosives.
And you failed to explain it and chose to ignore it. Typical response -nonsense.

False.
There are eyewitnesses who think there were bombs.

I'm calling this one as yet another sockpuppet of P'doh. (Although it was identified as such privately even before its prior sock "theauthor" got turfed, eventually.)

What he/she is rambling about is unimportant, as it has long been established to be nonsensical. The important question is what is the over/under? Bets are to be made on the super secret thread, as usual, but I am sooooooooo going to clean up on this one!

 

[Arus808]

russ, "think" there were bombs does not mean there were bombs;

heck, the FAA thought that there were more than the four hijacked planes that day. they had reports of up to 10 planes they thought were hijacked.

Please explain how ones opinion means its fact.

 

[Drs_Res]

False.
There are eyewitnesses who think there were bombs.

Then why hasn't the Truth movment brought these people forward to tell their stories?

Oh, yeah, they have Willey and the countdown guy (can't remember his name at the moment, was that McPadden?) who ran away from here after only a few posts.

And the stories of these two keep changing over time.

 

[Drs_Res]

I'm calling this one as yet another sockpuppet of P'doh. (Although it was identified as such privately even before its prior sock "theauthor" got turfed, eventually.)

What he/she is rambling about is unimportant, as it has long been established to be nonsensical. The important question is what is the over/under? Bets are to be made on the super secret thread, as usual, but I am sooooooooo going to clean up on this one!

Going to super secret thread now.

 

[R.Mackey]

False.
There are eyewitnesses who think there were bombs.

Names, please.

I've asked you this already.

 

[funk de fino]

Wrong again. To paraphrase, Mackey suggested that other than Rodriguez, no one has claimed to see bombs. Rodriguez has never made such a claim. I'm waiting for Mackey to retract his statement or provide the quote where Rodriguez claims to see explosives or bombs.

Did Rodriguez say he saw any hijackers?

 

[Foolmewunz]

Post it here. How did they find it wasn't explosives? When tons of eyewitnesses talked about detonations, bombs van filled with explosives.
NIST couldnt even figure out how WTC7 collapse till date and they managed to know there were no bombs?

Once you get to 100 posts, you get the NWO Automated Irony Meter, and then won't make this kind of post.

Surely you see the absurdity of you requesting everyone to post things and then claiming in the same post....

"...tons of eyewitnesses..." Really? You have their verified weights? As Ryan M pointed out, you've been asked (now three times) to put up or shut up.... Name the witnesses! (You can provide their weights, separately.)