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

theauthor · 14th June 2008, 10:48 AM

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"?

Garb · 14th June 2008, 10:49 AM

Why don't you ask him why he isn't part of the truth movement?

mrbaracuda · 14th June 2008, 10:53 AM

Originally Posted by theauthor

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"?

And this supports your insane theory about the gubmint rigging an empty building no one died in that has nothing to do with the subsequent actions taken by the gubmint, be it Afghanistan, Iraq or bills passed how?

Apart from that, I think you still have some questions pending for an answer here.
Not to mention explosion does not automatically equal demolitions. But who am I telling that? I don't want to stress the MA I guess.

theauthor · 14th June 2008, 10:53 AM

Originally Posted by Garb

Why don't you ask him why he isn't part of the truth movement?

Answer the question.

theauthor · 14th June 2008, 10:54 AM

Originally Posted by mrbaracuda

And this supports your insane theory about the gubmint rigging an empty building no one died in that has nothing to do with the subsequent actions taken by the gubmint, be it Afghanistan, Iraq or bills passed how?

Why did he say it was about to blow up?

R.Mackey · 14th June 2008, 10:55 AM

Originally Posted by theauthor

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

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

WTC 7 didn't "blow up." The individual was mistaken, or else you are ascribing a meaning to his words that he never intended.

Very simple.

theauthor · 14th June 2008, 10:56 AM

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

WTC 7 didn't "blow up." The individual was mistaken, or else you are ascribing a meaning to his words that he never intended.

Very simple.

He was mistaken? Hw did he manage that?

Garb · 14th June 2008, 10:56 AM

Originally Posted by theauthor

Answer the question.

Did he know? Was he using hyperbole? Did he help with explosives? Was he allowed to say this on camera? Is he the only one who knows of the explosives being planted?

Sure I find the statement odd but no one has decided to follow up and find the guy who said it, so this statement is meaningless until you know if he actually meant "bring down with explosives."

peteweaver · 14th June 2008, 10:56 AM

Are you familiar with the concept of a figure of speech ?

R.Mackey · 14th June 2008, 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by theauthor

He was mistaken? Hw did he manage that?

I don't follow you. People manage to be mistaken all the time, as you magnificently demonstrate.

And, as I stated, that was only one possibility.

defaultdotxbe · 14th June 2008, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by theauthor

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"?

since WTC7 didnt "blow up" he was wrong

as for how he knew "it'll be coming down soon" judging the structural soundness of a damaged/burning building is something that firefighters are trained to do

so now why dont you answer the question about why he isnt part of the truth movement?

theauthor · 14th June 2008, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by Garb

Did he know? Was he using hypserbole? Did he help with explosives? Was he allowed to say this on camera? Is he the only one who knows of the explosives being planted?

Sure I find the statement odd but no one has decided to follow up and find the guy who said it, so this statement is meaningless until you know if he actually meant "bring down with explosives."

He didnt just say blow up, he said "about to". How did he know that? Even if they feared collapse, how could he know it would be that imminent? Nobody, especially a proffessional like that, would describe a feared collapse as "about to blow up"....unless he knew it was about to blow up.

peteweaver · 14th June 2008, 10:58 AM

Oh and why aren't there any sounds of explosions in the raw news footage of the collapse of WTC 7 which has sound ?

theauthor · 14th June 2008, 10:59 AM

Originally Posted by defaultdotxbe

since WTC7 didnt "blow up" he was wrong

as for how he knew "it'll be coming down soon" judging the structural soundness of a damaged/burning building is something that firefighters are trained to do

so now why dont you answer the question about why he isnt part of the truth movement?

He was wrong? Why did he say it in the first place? "Blow up" is a very different concept to "collapse"

peteweaver · 14th June 2008, 10:59 AM

Originally Posted by theauthor

Even if they feared collapse, how could he know it would be that imminent?

Because of the way it was leaning.

Undesired Walrus · 14th June 2008, 10:59 AM

On a day such as September 11th, with planes flying into buildings, people jumping to their deaths, two huge buildings collapsing and the entire world's press trained on the streets of New York, I think you can forgive a man for using a common word like 'blow up' in excitable circumstances such as this. As this man has not come forward with this remarkable story of rigged buildings, it seems somewhat likely he was using an understandable hyperbole.

Curious how people such as you -the author- take almost anything like this as literal truth, yet you brush away Ramzi Bin Al-Shibh's 2002 audio-confession for no other reason than it not supporting your theory.

Garb · 14th June 2008, 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by theauthor

He didnt just say blow up, he said "about to". How did he know that?

Creaking, fire, and structural damage.

Originally Posted by theauthor

Even if they feared collapse, how could he know it would be that imminent? Nobody, especially a proffessional like that, would describe a feared collapse as "about to blow up"....unless he knew it was about to blow up.

What time did he make the statement and how long afterwards did the building collapse? Was this while they were setting up a collapse zone? After? Before?

And you forget the fact that he could be using a strange form of hyperbole. Someone should go and ask him.

theauthor · 14th June 2008, 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

I don't follow you. People manage to be mistaken all the time, as you magnificently demonstrate.

And, as I stated, that was only one possibility.

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?

1337m4n · 14th June 2008, 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by theauthor

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"?

You could always ask him.

DGM · 14th June 2008, 11:01 AM

Quote:

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

What did this gentleman say he meant by this? Obviously the "truth" movement wouldn't run this without confirming this persons meaning

. Can we see the follow up interview the "truthers" made?

R.Mackey · 14th June 2008, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by theauthor

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?

This is utterly irrelevant. WTC 7 did not blow up. I already pointed this out to you once.

Myriad · 14th June 2008, 11:02 AM

"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 · 14th June 2008, 11:04 AM

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

This is utterly irrelevant. WTC 7 did not blow up. I already pointed this out to you once.

How do you know this when the final report hasn't been released?

R.Mackey · 14th June 2008, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by theauthor

How do you know this when the final report hasn't been released?

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.

Redtail · 14th June 2008, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by theauthor

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?

It's a figure of speech.

Quote:

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?

Most likely.

theauthor · 14th June 2008, 11:11 AM

Originally Posted by Redtail

It's a figure of speech.

Most likely.

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"?

Ratatoskr · 14th June 2008, 11:11 AM

Originally Posted by theauthor

How do you know this when the final report hasn't been released?

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.

TexasJack · 14th June 2008, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by Myriad

"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

Nice find Myriad. Does that answer your question theauthor?

theauthor · 14th June 2008, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

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.

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.

Tomblvd · 14th June 2008, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by theauthor

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"?

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.

R.Mackey · 14th June 2008, 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by theauthor

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"?

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.

RedIbis · 14th June 2008, 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

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.

.

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.

R.Mackey · 14th June 2008, 11:18 AM

Originally Posted by theauthor

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.

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.

R.Mackey · 14th June 2008, 11:21 AM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

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.

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.

MarkyX · 14th June 2008, 11:22 AM

Originally Posted by theauthor

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"?

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.

BigAl · 14th June 2008, 11:22 AM

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.

Grizzly Bear · 14th June 2008, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by theauthor

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"?

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...

Originally Posted by theauthor

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.

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?

applecorped · 14th June 2008, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

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.

So. I know you are going to die. I may not know what day but I know you will.

theauthor · 14th June 2008, 11:26 AM

Originally Posted by MarkyX

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.

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.

DGM · 14th June 2008, 11:29 AM

Originally Posted by BigAl

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.

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.

14th June 2008, 10:48 AM	#1
theauthor Banned Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 780	Here is one rescue worker who was "in on it" 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"?
theauthor Banned Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 780

14th June 2008, 10:49 AM	#2
Garb Muse Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 873	Why don't you ask him why he isn't part of the truth movement?
Garb Muse Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 873	__________________ When I changed to my new computer, I was worried about info on the old computer being used for identity theft and such. Folks said: "Just yank the hard drive" and somesuch. But I blew up the apartment. Only way to be safe. -kookbreaker

14th June 2008, 10:53 AM	#3
mrbaracuda Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Germany Posts: 3,799	Originally Posted by theauthor 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"? And this supports your insane theory about the gubmint rigging an empty building no one died in that has nothing to do with the subsequent actions taken by the gubmint, be it Afghanistan, Iraq or bills passed how? Apart from that, I think you still have some questions pending for an answer here. Not to mention explosion does not automatically equal demolitions. But who am I telling that? I don't want to stress the MA I guess.
	Last edited by mrbaracuda; 14th June 2008 at 10:56 AM.

14th June 2008, 10:53 AM	#4
theauthor Banned Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 780	Originally Posted by Garb Why don't you ask him why he isn't part of the truth movement? Answer the question.
theauthor Banned Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 780

14th June 2008, 10:54 AM	#5
theauthor Banned Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 780	Originally Posted by mrbaracuda And this supports your insane theory about the gubmint rigging an empty building no one died in that has nothing to do with the subsequent actions taken by the gubmint, be it Afghanistan, Iraq or bills passed how? Why did he say it was about to blow up?
theauthor Banned Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 780

14th June 2008, 10:55 AM	#6
R.Mackey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: The armpit of L.A. Posts: 7,857	Originally Posted by theauthor "We are walking back because the building is about to blow up" How did he know building 7 was about to "blow up"? WTC 7 didn't "blow up." The individual was mistaken, or else you are ascribing a meaning to his words that he never intended. Very simple.
	__________________ "Nothing real can defeat us. Nothing unreal exists." -B. Banzai VT VENIANT OMNES

14th June 2008, 10:56 AM	#7
theauthor Banned Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 780	Originally Posted by R.Mackey WTC 7 didn't "blow up." The individual was mistaken, or else you are ascribing a meaning to his words that he never intended. Very simple. He was mistaken? Hw did he manage that?
theauthor Banned Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 780

14th June 2008, 10:56 AM	#8
Garb Muse Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 873	Originally Posted by theauthor Answer the question. Did he know? Was he using hyperbole? Did he help with explosives? Was he allowed to say this on camera? Is he the only one who knows of the explosives being planted? Sure I find the statement odd but no one has decided to follow up and find the guy who said it, so this statement is meaningless until you know if he actually meant "bring down with explosives."
Garb Muse Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 873	__________________ When I changed to my new computer, I was worried about info on the old computer being used for identity theft and such. Folks said: "Just yank the hard drive" and somesuch. But I blew up the apartment. Only way to be safe. -kookbreaker Last edited by Garb; 14th June 2008 at 10:57 AM.

14th June 2008, 10:56 AM	#9
peteweaver Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: UK Posts: 1,005	Are you familiar with the concept of a figure of speech ?

14th June 2008, 10:57 AM	#10
R.Mackey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: The armpit of L.A. Posts: 7,857	Originally Posted by theauthor He was mistaken? Hw did he manage that? I don't follow you. People manage to be mistaken all the time, as you magnificently demonstrate. And, as I stated, that was only one possibility.
	__________________ "Nothing real can defeat us. Nothing unreal exists." -B. Banzai VT VENIANT OMNES

14th June 2008, 10:58 AM	#11
defaultdotxbe Drunken Shikigami Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Dark Side of the Sun Posts: 7,482	Originally Posted by theauthor 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"? since WTC7 didnt "blow up" he was wrong as for how he knew "it'll be coming down soon" judging the structural soundness of a damaged/burning building is something that firefighters are trained to do so now why dont you answer the question about why he isnt part of the truth movement?
	__________________ I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein

14th June 2008, 10:58 AM	#12
theauthor Banned Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 780	Originally Posted by Garb Did he know? Was he using hypserbole? Did he help with explosives? Was he allowed to say this on camera? Is he the only one who knows of the explosives being planted? Sure I find the statement odd but no one has decided to follow up and find the guy who said it, so this statement is meaningless until you know if he actually meant "bring down with explosives." He didnt just say blow up, he said "about to". How did he know that? Even if they feared collapse, how could he know it would be that imminent? Nobody, especially a proffessional like that, would describe a feared collapse as "about to blow up"....unless he knew it was about to blow up.
theauthor Banned Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 780

14th June 2008, 10:59 AM	#14
theauthor Banned Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 780	Originally Posted by defaultdotxbe since WTC7 didnt "blow up" he was wrong as for how he knew "it'll be coming down soon" judging the structural soundness of a damaged/burning building is something that firefighters are trained to do so now why dont you answer the question about why he isnt part of the truth movement? He was wrong? Why did he say it in the first place? "Blow up" is a very different concept to "collapse"
theauthor Banned Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 780

14th June 2008, 10:59 AM	#15
peteweaver Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: UK Posts: 1,005	Originally Posted by theauthor Even if they feared collapse, how could he know it would be that imminent? Because of the way it was leaning.

14th June 2008, 10:59 AM	#16
Undesired Walrus Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: London Posts: 10,894	On a day such as September 11th, with planes flying into buildings, people jumping to their deaths, two huge buildings collapsing and the entire world's press trained on the streets of New York, I think you can forgive a man for using a common word like 'blow up' in excitable circumstances such as this. As this man has not come forward with this remarkable story of rigged buildings, it seems somewhat likely he was using an understandable hyperbole. Curious how people such as you -the author- take almost anything like this as literal truth, yet you brush away Ramzi Bin Al-Shibh's 2002 audio-confession for no other reason than it not supporting your theory.
	__________________ Man's material discoveries have outpaced his moral progress. - Clement Attlee, 1945 Last edited by Undesired Walrus; 14th June 2008 at 11:02 AM.

14th June 2008, 11:01 AM	#17
Garb Muse Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 873	Originally Posted by theauthor He didnt just say blow up, he said "about to". How did he know that? Creaking, fire, and structural damage. Originally Posted by theauthor Even if they feared collapse, how could he know it would be that imminent? Nobody, especially a proffessional like that, would describe a feared collapse as "about to blow up"....unless he knew it was about to blow up. What time did he make the statement and how long afterwards did the building collapse? Was this while they were setting up a collapse zone? After? Before? And you forget the fact that he could be using a strange form of hyperbole. Someone should go and ask him.
Garb Muse Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 873	__________________ When I changed to my new computer, I was worried about info on the old computer being used for identity theft and such. Folks said: "Just yank the hard drive" and somesuch. But I blew up the apartment. Only way to be safe. -kookbreaker

14th June 2008, 11:01 AM	#18
theauthor Banned Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 780	Originally Posted by R.Mackey I don't follow you. People manage to be mistaken all the time, as you magnificently demonstrate. And, as I stated, that was only one possibility. 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?
theauthor Banned Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 780

14th June 2008, 11:01 AM	#19
1337m4n Alphanumeric Anonymous Stick Man Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 3,499	Originally Posted by theauthor 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"? You could always ask him.
	__________________ http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...2b728514ea.gif "The evidence that the attacks of 9/11 were an inside job just keeps not coming in." --pomeroo

14th June 2008, 11:01 AM	#20
DGM #4 Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 14,350	Quote: "We are walking back because the building is about to blow up" What did this gentleman say he meant by this? Obviously the "truth" movement wouldn't run this without confirming this persons meaning. Can we see the follow up interview the "truthers" made?
	__________________ Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley Last edited by DGM; 14th June 2008 at 11:02 AM.

14th June 2008, 11:02 AM	#21
R.Mackey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: The armpit of L.A. Posts: 7,857	Originally Posted by theauthor 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? This is utterly irrelevant. WTC 7 did not blow up. I already pointed this out to you once.
	__________________ "Nothing real can defeat us. Nothing unreal exists." -B. Banzai VT VENIANT OMNES

14th June 2008, 11:02 AM	#22
Myriad Hyperthetical Moderator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 8,206	"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
	__________________ The cosmos is a vast Loom, with time the warp and space the weft. We are all fruit of the Loom, unaware.

14th June 2008, 11:04 AM	#23
theauthor Banned Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 780	Originally Posted by R.Mackey This is utterly irrelevant. WTC 7 did not blow up. I already pointed this out to you once. How do you know this when the final report hasn't been released?
theauthor Banned Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 780

14th June 2008, 11:07 AM	#24
R.Mackey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: The armpit of L.A. Posts: 7,857	Originally Posted by theauthor How do you know this when the final report hasn't been released? 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.
	__________________ "Nothing real can defeat us. Nothing unreal exists." -B. Banzai VT VENIANT OMNES

14th June 2008, 11:07 AM	#25
Redtail Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 9,304	Originally Posted by theauthor 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? It's a figure of speech. Quote: 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? Most likely.
Redtail Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 9,304	__________________ AVENGERS!!!.. Turn off the dark!

14th June 2008, 11:11 AM	#26
theauthor Banned Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 780	Originally Posted by Redtail It's a figure of speech. Most likely. 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"?
theauthor Banned Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 780

14th June 2008, 11:11 AM	#27
Ratatoskr NWO Squirrel Division Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Close to the north pole Posts: 1,996	Originally Posted by theauthor How do you know this when the final report hasn't been released? 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.
	__________________ "Without data, all you are is just another person with an opinion" - unknown "Nothing shocks me. I'm a scientist." - Indiana Jones My blog \| Skeptific.com - Skeptical feeds Previously known as NorwegianSquirrel

14th June 2008, 11:12 AM	#28
TexasJack Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 10,881	Originally Posted by Myriad "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 Nice find Myriad. Does that answer your question theauthor?

14th June 2008, 11:13 AM	#29
theauthor Banned Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 780	Originally Posted by R.Mackey 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. 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 Banned Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 780

14th June 2008, 11:13 AM	#30
Tomblvd Muse Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 789	Originally Posted by theauthor 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"? 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.
Tomblvd Muse Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 789

14th June 2008, 11:16 AM	#31
R.Mackey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: The armpit of L.A. Posts: 7,857	Originally Posted by theauthor 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"? 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.
	__________________ "Nothing real can defeat us. Nothing unreal exists." -B. Banzai VT VENIANT OMNES

14th June 2008, 11:16 AM	#32
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	Originally Posted by R.Mackey 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. . 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.
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	__________________ (RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)

14th June 2008, 11:18 AM	#33
R.Mackey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: The armpit of L.A. Posts: 7,857	Originally Posted by theauthor 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. 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.
	__________________ "Nothing real can defeat us. Nothing unreal exists." -B. Banzai VT VENIANT OMNES

14th June 2008, 11:21 AM	#34
R.Mackey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: The armpit of L.A. Posts: 7,857	Originally Posted by RedIbis 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. 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.
	__________________ "Nothing real can defeat us. Nothing unreal exists." -B. Banzai VT VENIANT OMNES

14th June 2008, 11:22 AM	#35
MarkyX Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 2,158	Originally Posted by theauthor 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"? 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.
MarkyX Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 2,158	__________________ MarkyX's Haunted Bloghouse - Read my boredom

14th June 2008, 11:22 AM	#36
BigAl Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,398	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.
BigAl Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,398