Explosions in the Twin Towers

[Dazed]

That's not what happened though.

Each floor didn't explode, it was crushed by the top of the building being dropped on it.

 

[PerryLogan]

Seismology proves no bombs

Earth calling conspiracy guys!

The seismology clearly indicates there were no explosions on 9/11. The conspiracy guys just can't seem to get a handle on this:

"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.

On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear--misleadingly--as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves--blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower--start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs.

(I can't post websites yet, but you probably recognize the quotation from the PM debunking.)

 

[kc440_]

My Point

I thought that might be possible early on that day. There has never been any evidence to support it, however. So what was your point?

The point is people who do not see complicity in what happened that day, get frantic when there's talk of bombs exploding in the WTC. I didn't understand why. One member here said it would have taken years to install the explosives. I don't think so. Bombs were involved in my opinion.

kc440

 

[T.A.M.]

Person 1:
- explosion, rumble, silt

Person 2:
- haevy duty explosion

Person 3:
- secondary explosions

Person 4 (audio only):
- Explosion blew

Person 5 (reporter):
- Huge explosion

Person 6:
- sounded like gunfire...bang bang bang, then 3 big explosions

Person 7 (Fire/police):
- sounded to me like a big explosion

Person 8:
- nothing relivant

Person 9:
- Big Explosion

Person 10:
- Big Explosion

Person 11 (audio only):
- a very loud blast, a explosion

Person 12 (news reporter audio)
- nothing relivant

Person 13 (audio only):
tower 1, we saw some kind of explosion, with dust coming out.

Person 14:
- Big Explosion

Person 15 (audio of news reporter):
- Cars turned over by the force of the explosion

Person 16 (fireman by himself):
- incredible force of wind and debris came up the stairs and knocked my hat off.

Group of Firemen talking:
- pop, pop, pop, they started popping out.
- I was as if they were detonated, as if they were planning to take down the building

Person 17 (another fireman):
- Thats when I got blow, the impact of the explosion, of what ever...

Person 18 (?fireman):
- nothing relivant to explosions

Person 19 (talking to pete jennings):
- nothing relivant to explosions

Governor Pataki and reporter:
- nothing relivant to explosions

Reporter, as tower comes down:
- huge explosion

Aaron Brown, after tower collapsed:
- there has just been a huge explosion.

Aaron brown, standing about 5 miles from the site:
- It looks like this huge mushroom cloud

All other comments:
- the building has collapsed.

Very last reporter (quoting chief of safety for NYFD):
- he recieved word of the possibility of a secondary device, that is anothe rbomb going off, he thinks that there were devices that were actually planted.




That is it....that is all there is to that video.

Alot of explosions, and one report, 2nd hand, of the POSSIBILITY of bombs planted, never confirmed, never mentioned again.

jeez

TAM

 

[Arus808]

The point is people who do not see complicity in what happened that day, get frantic when there's talk of bombs exploding in the WTC. I didn't understand why. One member here said it would have taken years to install the explosives. I don't think so. Bombs were involved in my opinion.

kc440

then your opinion is based on nothing. facts seem to get in the way of those who have opinions about explosives.

 

[T.A.M.]

The point is people who do not see complicity in what happened that day, get frantic when there's talk of bombs exploding in the WTC. I didn't understand why. One member here said it would have taken years to install the explosives. I don't think so. Bombs were involved in my opinion.

kc440

Actually, it was me, and I was quoting the top demolitions expert in the netherlands (I believe that was the country), Jowenko, who said that to bring down one of the towers, via controlled demolition, it would have taken a year or more, so for both and WTC7, you are talking years, of preparation in terms of installing the charges and rigging them up.

TAM

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

kc440 makes an excellent point. Yes, things like fire extinguishers can explode in a fire. But veteran firefighters know this, and would not be confused. The firefighters report being blown up the stairs and such. They report "huge" explosions.

This is certainly not inconsistant with explosives. People who parrot the canard of "no evidence" for controlled demolition are just wrong. There is a ton of evidence. For example, this:

​

Can someone please explain this to me? Here we see the top 30 or so floors of WTC2 tilting over to the south. The north face is to the right in the picture. We see great clouds of smoke and dust being expelled from the north face. Since the top of the building is tipping away from the north face, what force is present to create this effect?

Also, notice that the top 10 or so floors have already broken. Why?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

why do firefighters simply describe explosions, why dont they emphasize that it was odd or unusual?

 

[T.A.M.]

kc440 makes an excellent point. Yes, things like fire extinguishers can explode in a fire. But veteran firefighters know this, and would not be confused. The firefighters report being blown up the stairs and such. They report "huge" explosions.

This is certainly not inconsistant with explosives. People who parrot the canard of "no evidence" for controlled demolition are just wrong. There is a ton of evidence. For example, this:

[qimg]http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/trouble/17_WTC2_tilt2.jpg[/qimg]
​

Can someone please explain this to me? Here we see the top 30 or so floors of WTC2 tilting over to the south. The north face is to the right in the picture. We see great clouds of smoke and dust being expelled from the north face. Since the top of the building is tipping away from the north face, what force is present to create this effect?

Also, notice that the top 10 or so floors have already broken. Why?

I hope you have a bigger version of this 240x160 pixel picture, to be making those claims.

TAM

 

[CptColumbo]

BTW here is what happened to the debris.

 

[stateofgrace]

Let me put it this way. Osama bin Laden paid for the Islamics to hit the WTC in a way we'd never forget. So a plane flew into each tower. If he could pull this off, why not have bombs planted in the buildings to go off at a certain time?

Let me put this back at you.

Would you?

You are planning the worst terrorist attack ever, using 19 individuals, trying to keep a low profile and operate "under the radar". Would you risk somebody, well not somebody, teams of explosives engineers going into the Towers beforehand? Working day and night, hoping nobody would get caught?

How risky and totally silly would that be?

The whole idea was the wake up America, to come totally out of the blue, against a country that was not prepared to deal with it. And you risk it all by involving lots and lots of people before hand. The more people you involve the greater the chance of being caught. Keep the groups small, keep low and don't draw attention to yourself. It clearly worked.

 

[T.A.M.]

what would you say if you threw an aeresol can into a fire, and then heard a loud bang....damn, the can just exploded.

 

[Dog Town]

what would you say if you threw an aeresol can into a fire, and then heard a loud bang....damn, the can just exploded.

I jump everytime! White shave foam best.

 

[CptColumbo]

kc440 makes an excellent point. Yes, things like fire extinguishers can explode in a fire. But veteran firefighters know this, and would not be confused. The firefighters report being blown up the stairs and such. They report "huge" explosions.

This is certainly not inconsistant with explosives. People who parrot the canard of "no evidence" for controlled demolition are just wrong. There is a ton of evidence. For example, this:

[qimg]http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/trouble/17_WTC2_tilt2.jpg[/qimg]
​

Can someone please explain this to me? Here we see the top 30 or so floors of WTC2 tilting over to the south. The north face is to the right in the picture. We see great clouds of smoke and dust being expelled from the north face. Since the top of the building is tipping away from the north face, what force is present to create this effect?

Also, notice that the top 10 or so floors have already broken. Why?

I'm just guessing, but it might be because the structure was damaged more on the side facing away from the other tower. It then fell in the direction of least resistance.

 

[twinstead]

Also, notice that the top 10 or so floors have already broken. Why?

There are experts in the way structures fail who could explain it to you. I, nor YOU are an expert. You specifically tend to love to infer sinister doings for things you don't understand. Kind of like zenophobic paranoia. Zenonoia? Paraphobia?

Anyway, what do real experts say? What is the consensus of all the experts on how buildings fail world-wide?

And for God's sake why do you think they are lying?

 

[kc440_]

The Firefighters

why do firefighters simply describe explosions, why dont they emphasize that it was odd or unusual?

You can hear the amazement in the firefighters' voices.

kc440

 

[T.A.M.]

I didn't haer amazement so much as surprise mixed with "I am lucky to be alive" excitement of living to tell the story.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

There are experts in the way structures fail who could explain it to you. I, nor YOU are an expert. You specifically tend to love to infer sinister doings for things you don't understand. Kind of like zenophobic paranoia. Zenonoia? Paraphobia?

Anyway, what do real experts say? What is the consensus of all the experts on how buildings fail world-wide?

And for God's sake why do you think they are lying?

The word you are looking for, my favorite word, is CONSPIRANOIA!

TAM

 

[Arus808]

You can hear the amazement in the firefighters' voices.

kc440

yes, i'd be amazed that 2 110 story building was just impacted by two airliners, and the carnage, confusion and the subsequent collapse of buildings that dominated a known skyline for years would come down killing nearly 3000 people.

 

[stateofgrace]

You can hear the amazement in the firefighters' voices.

kc440

Yes I'm sure the fire-fighters were amazed. After all it I'm sure it's not everyday they are called to attend to massive skyscrapers that have just had planes slammed into them, only to witness them collapsing.

Edit ...damm it arus, you beat me to it, I must learn to type faster.