10 story hole in WTC 7

[uk_dave]

I came to the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job on my own.
I found out about these people when i started doing research on 9/11.

And where did you go for that research?

 

[A W Smith]

Desel fuel doesn't explode. Thats why they use it.

Oh in a fire in a closed tank it does.

 

[R.Mackey]

Desel fuel doesn't explode. Thats why they use it.

Another 100% wrong statement by a Troofer.

Diesel fuel is used in diesel engines. Diesel engines differ from gasoline engines in one key aspect, namely that the fuel ignition is caused by a combination of pressure and temperature rather than a spark, which is required to ignite gasoline.

In other words, diesel fuel is selected specifically for its explosive properties.

Carry on.

 

[LashL]

Good grief. Do you think WTC 7 was fully involved?
What part of 'fully' don't you understand?

I do understand what "fully involved" means, as I specifically asked a fire captain, and specifically showed him photos of WTC7 for reference. I will take his word as an experienced fire captain and HUSAR member over yours as an anonymous internet conspiracy fantasist, any day.

You are entitled to your opinion.

Finally, something that we agree on.

The 'clap like thunder' along with a shock wave through the building and all the windows blew out sounds a hellofalot like a CD.
Craig heard explosions. It could have been something other than demolition charges, but then, it could have been demolition charges.

Except that there is zero evidence of demolition charges. Remember, the building was full of people that day. It is not as though demolition charges could have been planted there surreptitiously and nobody noticed.

I responded to your question in post # 558

You did not respond to the part about "opportunity to observe" - and you still have not, even though I pointed that out to you above, quite clearly, and asked you if you even understand what the phrase means on an evidentiary level, etc. You have not addressed that at all.

 

[Belz...]

What part of 'sometimes' don't you understand?

You need to work on your reading comprehension:

So "explosion" always involves a bomb?

No
Sometimes it's part of a CD.

I see. Every explosion is caused by an explosive charge.

What part of 'always' don't you understand ?

 

[Belz...]

Desel fuel doesn't explode. Thats why they use it.

How can a person possibly be this ignorant about the real world ?

 

[JimBenArm]

Desel fuel doesn't explode. Thats why they use it.

Another moment of true wisdom!

 

[twinstead]

Some people shouldn't be ALLOWED to investigate anything

 

[MaGZ]

there were multiple back up generator fuel tanks on upper floors. Do you doubt that these could explode in a fire?

The Fire Department may have set the tanks on fire in order to burn off the fule. Once the fule was gone then a CD could begin.

 

[NickUK]

The Fire Department may have set the tanks on fire in order to burn off the fule. Once the fule was gone then a CD could begin.

Are you being paid commission per BS post or something?

 

[JimBenArm]

The Fire Department may have set the tanks on fire in order to burn off the fule. Once the fule was gone then a CD could begin.

So FDNY was in on it? They're part of the conspiracy, even though hundreds of their fellow firefighters were killed?

Is that really what you mean?

 

[Gravy]

The Fire Department may have set the tanks on fire in order to burn off the fule. Once the fule was gone then a CD could begin.

I may have had sex with Jessica Alba today. You comment is one of the stupidest I have ever seen in my life. If that's insulting to you, so be it. It's a statement of fact.

And it's "fuel." But I guess since you get everything else wrong I shouldn't expect you to pay attention to the forum software's spell check suggestions either.

 

[twinstead]

I may have had sex with Jessica Alba today.

You're just blowing smoke, Gravy. She was at my house all day and you know it...

 

[jaydeehess]

The Fire Department may have set the tanks on fire in order to burn off the fule. Once the fule was gone then a CD could begin.

Hilarious!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Well guys, we are part of a vast and complicated plot to kill thousands of US citizens and destroy tens of millions of dollars worth of structures and severely damage several others and there is not a care as to how this will put the economy of the USA into a tailspin that will take years to recover from, AND now we have to take down one more building down, BUT we don't want a fuel spill causing any damage to the rubble so we gotta set fire to the fuel where it is THEN we can set the explosives off"





C7, this guy helping you?

 

[jaydeehess]

It's what they said that matters.

What makes you think they would describe damage starting above the atrium and continuing to the ground and then say the atrium glass on the other side of a 60 to 80 foot gouge was intact?
That doesn't make any sense. You are grasping at straws.

I already asked you what makes you think that any damage significant enough to be remarked upon could occur in the very same location as windows that were all still intact. That doesn't make sense. You are grasping at staws. You seem to be doing it because you have to be able to show this statement to be completely unambiguous and consistent in order to keep it of use in showing that the other statement is not. What you are doing is a prime example of sophistry.

 

[twinstead]

I would be interested in how Christopher7 would react to real or percieved anomalies in events that he agrees with ideologically.

 

[beachnut]

The Fire Department may have set the tanks on fire in order to burn off the fule. Once the fule was gone then a CD could begin.

You are the dumbest yet; missiles and plain made up lies. How did you learn to type?

Are you the dumbest guy at the white power meetings?

 

[Christopher7]

I do understand what "fully involved" means, as I specifically asked a fire captain, and specifically showed him photos of WTC7 for reference. I will take his word as an experienced fire captain and HUSAR member over yours as an anonymous internet conspiracy fantasist, any day.

Did you show the fire Captain the pictures of the east, north and west sides?

Except that there is zero evidence of demolition charges. Remember, the building was full of people that day. It is not as though demolition charges could have been planted there surreptitiously and nobody noticed.

The evidence for demolition charges is the eyewitness statements of Daryl and Craig Bartmer, the squibs, and the smoke coming from many places where there was no fire, as the building collapsed.
The charges could not have been placed on 9/11.

You did not respond to the part about "opportunity to observe" - and you still have not, even though I pointed that out to you above, quite clearly, and asked you if you even understand what the phrase means on an evidentiary level, etc. You have not addressed that at all.

On the contrary. I pointed out where the firefighters were when they observed: "no debris in lobby area" and the "only damage to 9th floor occurred at the SW corner"

Is the '10 story gouge' statement sufficient on an 'evidentiary level' ?
What was the 'opportunity to observe' ?

There was no fire and smoke coming from the lower floors of WTC 7 to obscure Batallion Chief Fellini's view in the first hours.
Do you think he based his statement on a single observation, from a location where his vision was obscured?

 

[Christopher7]

You need to work on your reading comprehension:
What part of 'always' don't you understand ?

Sometimes means 'not always'
Perhaps it is you that needs to work on reading comprehension.

 

[Christopher7]

And where did you go for that research?

I started at wtc7.net