• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Explosions in the Twin Towers

Amazement

T.A.M. said:
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
Click to expand...

You are right. Poor word choice on my part. And then one of them described demolition.

kc440
 
So every Fire Fighter who was on the scene that day has gone on record saying bombs were in the building?
 
kc440_ said:
The firefighters said they heard detonations and that the building(s) came down like demolition. The firefighter illustrates this with his hands. Did you not see that part of the clip? He was an expert on fires, a firefighter and an eyewitness.

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?

I don't understand why you are afraid of bombs being there. They hijacked several airplanes, and they had explosives planted in the buildings. Are you saying the terrorists couldn't have done that? Why not? They did everything else to scare us and kill people.

kc440
Click to expand...

There is NO evidence of malicious explosive devices from the 9/11 disaster. Yes its feasible the terrorists could have placed bombs in the towers. In fact it was a suspicion initially in the pandemonium. However upon investigation nothing of the sort was found. As SOT said, things explode in fires!!!! Please please PLEASE use some common sense before you jump to a conclusion.
 
Last edited:
Kc440 have you thought to contact any of these firefighters and ask them if they suspect there were bombs in the buildings?

Sure, anything is possible. I realize you aren't specifically suggesting that they were planted by the Evil Government, that they could have been planted by terrorists, but there is no direct evidence other than the anecdotal explosions <> explosives you mention that any explosives existed.

You could suggest that Osama himself planted the bombs in the buildings to try to get us to admit there were bombs, and the theory would still be rejected due to a complete lack of evidence.

And I believe had there been that much explosives the evidence of it would be massive. Incontrovertibly massive.
 
Last edited:
kc440_ said:
You are right. Poor word choice on my part. And then one of them described demolition.

kc440
Click to expand...

yes, they discribed that the building came down as if they were planning to take down the building.

Man it got so dark, it was as if it suddenly became night.

Man I was so drunk, it was as if I had an bottle permanently attached to my lips.

Man, it was so hot, it was as if I was standing on the sun.

Get my drift

TAM
 
kc440_ said:
You are right. Poor word choice on my part. And then one of them described demolition.

kc440
Click to expand...

Yes a heap did. Then investigation kicked in. Actual physical evidence of malicious exlosives = 0.

I cant believe you would bother contemplating the bomb theory. It has been destroyed. Blown up. Smashed.

Naturally during a terrorist strike during fear you would assume with explosions etc going around you that it may possibly be bombs going off, pre planted to aid in some massive destructive campaign. Its normal. Your thoughts are forgiven for being irrational. What is not normal is to continue with the theory fricken 5 years later that this happened on 9/11 when physical evidence shows this to be wrong.

5 years. 5 GOD DAMN YEARS and people still claim this crap. First year or two...yeah possibly. But 5 years now with a lot of the real story now told.

* slaps head *
 
kc440_ said:
You are right. Poor word choice on my part. And then one of them described demolition.

kc440
Click to expand...

again, you misquote. YOU might wanna try and RE-READ what they stated.
The firefighter in question described what looked like a demolition. looked like is not evidence of actual explosives.
 
An excellent and laymans way of explaining how this is not possible is shown in Mark Roberts new WTC7 CT critique.
 
kc440_ said:
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?
Click to expand...

because when they tried it that way it was a huge failure. Remember 2/26/1993? Why try something that already failed?
 
kc440_ said:
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. :rolleyes:

kc440
Click to expand...

No offense, but your own personal incredulity isn't the deciding factor in this debate. I will show you the math if you want to see how long it would have taken to wire those buildings.

Besides, TS1234's own picture which he posted contradicts the CD argument. Buildings which are demolished are not demolished from the top down, nor are the explosions begun in the upper-middle parts of the building.
 
Dazed said:
However, a youtube video of eyewitness statements is about as far from empirical evidence as one can get.
Click to expand...

I think you are underestimating the CTists. Remember the rabbit cage WTC?
 
kc440_ said:
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?
kc440
Click to expand...

And if he had the resources to plant such bombs, why plant them in the same building he planned to hit with planes? His intent was to cause maximum terror, right? So image if, about noon on 9/11, when everyone and their dog is looking for the next hijacked plane, the Sears Tower was to suddenly just blow up. We'd have freaked even more than we did. No building anywhere would have been considered safe!


Now that's terror!
 
kc440_ said:
Those buildings were so incinerated, no one could have found evidence of explosives. All the "evidence" was carted off by Guiliani.
Click to expand...

[scratches head]

So... if the buildings were so incinerated that explosive residue could not be found, then why did they have to cart off the evidence? I'm confused - you CT guys need to get your stories coordinated.
 
CurtC said:
[scratches head]

So... if the buildings were so incinerated that explosive residue could not be found, then why did they have to cart off the evidence? I'm confused - you CT guys need to get your stories coordinated.
Click to expand...

Hey, it takes a special kind of CT'er to make an assertion in one sentence and debunk himself in the next. :)
 
People, I hate to say it, but I've been reading a lot about this subject lately, and kc440 is right. Check this quote:

"At least nine upper stories were on fire and muffled explosions could be heard in the building." http://tinyurl.com/rded8
Click to expand...


Oh, wait. That was about the Madrid Windsor Building fire.

Never mind. I got my quotes screwed up again.

Stay tuned, kc. In a few days I'll be publishing some facts to temper your fantasies.
 
TS, let's put your earliest posts to rest, for once.
You didn't find anything in the Youtube that CptColombo posted here? How about a whole lot of debris much larger than what you maintain?

First question in OUR debate - answer it or go away:
Do you or do you not see debris (a lot of debris) that is considerably larger than macroscopic (your and Gordon Ross's assertion, not mine).

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1990459#post1990459

View the video and then answer. No smoke up the skirt, just answer the question.

And while you're at it, you might want to notice what a lot of our reactions are all about. (For anyone still having nightmares about 9/11, don't watch past the first couple of minutes because there's disturbing, though not graphic,footage of them bringing out remains.)

Everyone else.... save the video link. Every time he brings up "powderized", ask the same question.

CptColombo - Good Vid! I hadn't seen it before, so if it's old news, thanks for renewing.
 
In the north tower it looks like the block already disintegrates during the fall. There is somewhere a pic around with some read lines to show that. The south tower toppling block is also something with a similar feature. If you consider point masses and a floor distance of 3.7 meter the initial falling block got about 0.86 seconds to hit the next floor and to increase its speed. It's a matter of counting frames in a video
to see what happens. Check this site, they conclude the block disintegrates even before it hits a major
part of the intact building.

http://thewebfairy.com/nerdcities/WTC/south-tower.htm

Without mentioning explosives I think this is really something to investigate and think about, you can wonder how much
initial momentum remains to be transferred, it's magical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom