|
Post by shred on May 4, 2013 5:14:51 GMT -5
Right Bob, Steve Spak talks about WTC7 in this interview. www.cbc.ca/fifth/2009-2010/the_unofficial_story/video_spak.htmlHere he describes "fire and smoke mostly smoke pushing from numerous floors, almost from top to bottom". "I know it wasn't imploded". "I don't care what the truth movement says, they weren't there I was". He also makes a point about 30,000 gallons of Diesel fuel. He makes a point that firefighters are "pissed off about the 'truth' movement". He also says the fire department "did the right thing in not fighting the fire". It's six minutes forty five seconds long, enjoy.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 4, 2013 8:37:43 GMT -5
I tried to listen to the video but it's not working. Regardless, it's his opinion. So? "He makes a point that firefighters are "pissed off about the 'truth' movement"."Which firefighters? How about these?: firefightersfor911truth.org/
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 4, 2013 10:21:14 GMT -5
They're not the New York Firefighters who were there, the NYFD are pissed off at you frauds.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 4, 2013 10:22:09 GMT -5
Video worked for me, what browser are you using ?
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 4, 2013 10:36:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 4, 2013 12:23:12 GMT -5
They're not the New York Firefighters who were there, the NYFD are pissed off at you frauds. How do you know that? There are many videos about firefighters, police and other responders who saw, heard and felt explosions. Why do they all need to be there to question the official narrative?
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 4, 2013 12:36:37 GMT -5
Steve Spak IS with the NYFD, knows NYFD, lost friends in the attack watched the buildings burn and fall and I take him at his word, furthermore he had radio contact with all of the NYFD radio traffic. He's an excellent witness and his testimony proves that there was no controlled demolition. As for explosions, when the Twin Towers fell, cars were set alight. It's a fact that petrol tanks exploded, ask anyone who was there. Explosions don't automatically mean demolition charges. WTC7 contained a Con Edison substation, electricity and fire aren't a good mix. When the planes hit the twin towers, they exploded, the fuel from them worked as a thermobaric bomb at the moment of impact. Thermite on the other hand does not explode, it's an incendiary. RDX which is used in controlled demolitions is susceptible to fire and it's military variant C4 is sometimes used by soldiers as firelighters! Furthermore there were no blasting caps or detcord found in the debris by any clean up workers or fire-fighters nor were any tell tale chains of 120db explosions heard before collapse of any of the buildings, so RDX can be ruled out. And this debris, the pillars at the base of one of the towers, they were still standing after the collapse: That would not happen in a controlled demolition.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 4, 2013 18:21:44 GMT -5
Loud bangs can be heard when steel shears naturally too:
Mild steel sample shears 45s and hardened sample at 1m36s this one is loud enough to surprise one of the students.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 4, 2013 23:11:59 GMT -5
"Steve Spak IS with the NYFD, knows NYFD, lost friends in the attack watched the buildings burn and fall and I take him at his word, furthermore he had radio contact with all of the NYFD radio traffic. He's an excellent witness and his testimony proves that there was no controlled demolition."
You're just repeating yourself. He may be an "excellent witness" but so are hundreds more. He doesn't prove anything other than state his opinion.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 5, 2013 4:15:19 GMT -5
Everyone who saw the south side of WTC7 saw the fire and the smoke within. Everyone who had an NYFD radio knew that Firefighters were pulled from the area for good reason, the water pressure from the mains was low as the collapses of the twin towers had damaged the water mains. Firefighters were also pulled from WTC6. Firefighters cannot fight major building fires without water.
Every firefighter I've seen from Firefighters for 9/11 'truth' crucially a) wasn't there & b) hasn't been told the full picture, i.e. hasn't seen the south side damage smoke and fire. I can understand why they feel why they do but when they say only a few small fires, that's not what people who really were there say.
They obviously aren't aware of this:
CNN CBS NBC all had live cameras watching WTC7 and microphones were on, any demolition charges would have been heard. Massive smoke could be seen rising from the south of WTC7, other footage including that of Steve Spak shows fire and smoke belching from an inferno inside. They've obviously not seen this:
Or this:
These jigsaw pieces change the picture completely from "just a few small fires" to "raging inferno".
Anyway, good day to you Bob, and if like here tomorrow is a bank holiday, have a lovely bank holiday.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 5, 2013 8:42:10 GMT -5
"These jigsaw pieces change the picture completely from "just a few small fires" to "raging inferno"."
The videos clearly show WTC7 was not a "raging inferno". There were fires on a few floors. In fact, with all the videos that show WTC7 collapsing, including the one you keep posting, one cannot even see any fire. Regardless, no matter how much you want to exaggerate the fires in WTC7, that has nothing to do with the manner in which it actually collapsed, in free fall and in near free fall, in its entirety and in its footprint. And that's on video too.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 5, 2013 15:06:36 GMT -5
CNN CBS NBC all had live cameras watching WTC7 and microphones were on, any demolition charges would have been heard. They would have been heard loud and clear. I watched the sequential controlled demolition of several buildings in Baltimore. I was approx. 1/4 mile away.....heard the explosions (quite loud) and saw the flashes. None of that appears in any video I have seen of WTC7 collapsing. Then I guess you missed this one: And an interview with this guy:
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 5, 2013 15:11:50 GMT -5
"These jigsaw pieces change the picture completely from "just a few small fires" to "raging inferno"."The videos clearly show WTC7 was not a "raging inferno" Au contraire my friend there's no smoke without fire and have you seen the smoke ? The fire was an inferno. Sooted up windows will have obscured the view from the north but the south face was torn open and gushing smoke like it was Howard Marks. In case you've never owned a glazed coal fire which requires daily cleaning of the glass, any fire will soot up glass. See how this glass is sooty ? And this glass, which was closer to the heart of the blaze: And that was just from a small fire. Despite this Abbey Leisure is in the process of controlled demolition, it is being pulled. Burning carpet and plastics did this: In WTC7 there was more than carpet and plastic to combust.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 5, 2013 15:21:09 GMT -5
They would have been heard loud and clear. I watched the sequential controlled demolition of several buildings in Baltimore. I was approx. 1/4 mile away.....heard the explosions (quite loud) and saw the flashes. None of that appears in any video I have seen of WTC7 collapsing. Then I guess you missed this one: That's the Doctored fake video you posted before. It's only evidence of what can be achieved with video editing software. Barry Jennings never said that WTC7 was a controlled demolition. He never said there were dead bodies, only that it felt as if he was stepping over people, he never saw dead bodies. He never said that "explosives" were going off inside it. He wasn't near windows when debris from the collapses of the twin towers hit. He wasn't happy with the way Loose Change tried twisting his words. He wasn't happy with the 9/11 'truth' movement. He left WTC7 7 hours before it fell. It BURNED for 7 hours after he left. Think about all the live footage which was broadcast at the time, everyone within at least a 3 mile radius would have heard a sequence of demo charges if there'd been any, all the clean up workers would have found the remains from demo charges including blasting caps and detcord. You've memorised the official 'truth' movement conspiracy theories but that's all they are, theories with out of context quotes, misrepresentations and doctored videos.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 5, 2013 15:46:59 GMT -5
You don't need to make things up as usual. Why are you trying to explain (while making things up) what anyone can see and hear for themselves? Why do you continue to make claims about "doctored" videos you can't back up?
Here's a more elaborate video about the WTC7 EXPLOSIONS, this one is corroborated by Michael Hess, who was with Barry Jennings at the time:
So that makes 2 witnesses who saw, heard and felt explosions while inside WTC7. You're big on people who were actually there, so here's 2 of them.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 5, 2013 15:56:11 GMT -5
"The fire was an inferno."
More bulls**t. These are infernos:
Compare those with WTC7 as it collapsed:
There's a lot of smoke behind the building but there's no fire to be seen in front. Certainly nothing that be characterized as an "inferno", except to those who insist on lying/exaggerating.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 5, 2013 16:00:04 GMT -5
1) Sounds that sound like explosions and explosive charges are two different things. 2) Burning debris from the twin towers DID set cars on fire and fuel tanks did explode. 3) Electrical transformers can explode in fire, WTC7 contained a Con Edison electrical substation.
So you have witnesses who heard SOUNDS, but no physical evidence of explosives at all, just something that sounds a bit like but could be anything really.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 5, 2013 16:01:18 GMT -5
This too is an inferno dude:
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 5, 2013 16:04:42 GMT -5
1) Sounds that sound like explosions and explosive charges are two different things. 2) Burning debris from the twin towers DID set cars on fire and fuel tanks did explode. 3) Electrical transformers can explode in fire, WTC7 contained a Con Edison electrical substation. So you have witnesses who heard SOUNDS, but no physical evidence of explosives at all, just something that sounds a bit like but could be anything really. Let's dance shall we? Again, you're trying to explain/make things up about what anyone can see and hear on video. Why do you do that? Do you think people need you to explain what's on all those videos otherwise they wouldn't have a clue? Do you actually think you're the eyes, ears and brains for everyone?
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 5, 2013 16:06:43 GMT -5
No, I'm saying bang doesn't always mean bomb. Think what it must have sounded like when spandrels and burning debris from WTC1 slammed into WTC7 from inside? Barry Jennings was inside at the time.
Think about it.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 5, 2013 16:07:37 GMT -5
"This too is an inferno dude"
A lot of smoke and no fire to be seen is not an inferno. I'm sure there was fire producing all that smoke but when compared to the 3 videos I posted a link to, there's no comparison. Not to mention that in all 3 videos, the fires blazed all around the buildings while in WTC7, you can't see anything like that at all.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 5, 2013 16:09:03 GMT -5
"Think about it."
I don't need you to tell me to "think about it", obviously I already have.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 5, 2013 16:09:16 GMT -5
There's no smoke without fire. Think about it.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 5, 2013 17:36:27 GMT -5
"Watch the video starting at 0:47, showing one of the purported explosions. Watch the replay starting at 1:02. Note the differences."
There are none. Both are identical.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 5, 2013 17:42:16 GMT -5
In your opinion Bob, not in reality.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 5, 2013 19:56:25 GMT -5
"Watch the video starting at 0:47, showing one of the purported explosions. Watch the replay starting at 1:02. Note the differences."There are none. Both are identical. No, they are not. Immediately following 0:47 is one "explosion"; during the "replay" at 1:02 there are two "explosions" in rapid succession. It's quite clear. Now go on out and argue with a stop sign.................and have a good evening. Actually now that you mention it, you're right, if you look closely enough, you can see Bush waving and smiling out of one the windows. It's the same video shown twice. Even if it was "doctored" why would anyone want to show it differently the second time? To test people's perception? How much time did you spend trying to find any miniscule pixel or sound that you believe was out of place? And why? So you can come back and agree that it's "doctored"? And even let's say it's 100% true that it's "doctored", why are wasting your time trying to find any way possible that it could be "doctored" when the 9/11 Commission Report has been a publicly admitted lie and you haven't said a word about that? Why is it more important to you that those who contradict the official story be scrutinized but not those who published a report full of lies?
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 6, 2013 1:46:35 GMT -5
Because the person doctoring it wasn't good enough at doctoring it to make it appear the same at two different speeds. And Doctored it was, all raw tv footage of the collapse contradicts it. Why is it that those videos which lie are more important to you than the truth ?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 6, 2013 7:07:55 GMT -5
Because the person doctoring it wasn't good enough at doctoring it to make it appear the same at two different speeds. And Doctored it was, all raw tv footage of the collapse contradicts it. Why is it that those videos which lie are more important to you than the truth ? I'll tell you what, just like with Steven Jones, I don't need to defend a YouTube video. If you think it's doctored then that's fine with me, it's really not important to me. I'll post the links, you make of it whatever you want to make of it.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 7, 2013 4:57:24 GMT -5
I don't "think" it's doctored, I know it's doctored. You, posted it with the best of intentions, but it's a fake and you were fooled. You should care, you should be very angry that you've been lied to by a source you respected.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 7, 2013 7:01:41 GMT -5
I don't "think" it's doctored, I know it's doctored. You, posted it with the best of intentions, but it's a fake and you were fooled. You should care, you should be very angry that you've been lied to by a source you respected. I don't really care what you think you know. You have made many claims here that you haven't been able to support, you have no credibility, at least with me.
|
|