Debunker says what?

[johnny karate]

Yes, that what I was saying earlier. They were "loud sounds from an unknown source". There's no way to identify them at this point.

Well, we certainly know what they weren't, and that's the very loud and very distinctive detonation charges of a controlled demolition since not a single person in the vicinity reported hearing them, and not a single recording device recorded them.

Now, if you want to pretend that these "mysterious" explosions have some kind of sinister source, you go right ahead. But out here in reality, there is nothing remotely mysterious about "loud sounds from an unknown source" during the collapse of a skyscraper.

 

[triforcharity]

Sezme,

Your welcome. I bet there was a few times he experienced this. Possibly even as recently as last week.

 

[Justin39640]

Well, we certainly know what they weren't, and that's the very loud and very distinctive detonation charges of a controlled demolition since not a single person in the vicinity reported hearing them, and not a single recording device recorded them.

Now, if you want to pretend that these "mysterious" explosions have some kind of sinister source, you go right ahead. But out here in reality, there is nothing remotely mysterious about "loud sounds from an unknown source" during the collapse of a skyscraper.

they would have heard demolition charges that big in jersey city and brooklyn

 

[triforcharity]

So why were the towers unexpected to fall?

I personally didn't expect them to fall. I cannot speak for everyone there, but me and my crew personally, no. Did others?? Maybe.

And does every debunker claim this?

I only speak for myself. I cannot and will not speak for anyone else. Nor should you assume that I do.

Is this the debunker consensus now?

I only speak for myself.

No one should have expected the towers to have collapsed by intentionally being slammed by jetliners?

Why not?

Supposedly it's elementary these days.

How do I turn you people around every time?

lol

Take the ESB for example. (I know, different construction, different plane, blah blah blah ) It didn't fall.

Plus, not to mention (IIRC) no firefighters made it to the floors that were the seat of the fire. I could be wrong, as I have said before, things get hazy sometimes.

Yes, now we know for a fact that if a 767 is hijacked and crashed into a building simmilar to WTC 1&2, that it very well may fail. Maybe not. But, should we just let anyone who is in the building parrish?? Nope. I took an oath, as did every other firefighter, to save lives. That is what we do.

HOW FREAKING HARD IS THIS TO UNDERSTAND!?!?!?!?!?!? Really??? Is it that hard of a concept to grasp??? Or is it that you can't imagine anyone doing that because you are a coward, and would run away from a wastebasket fire if it was in your house?? I am guessing that I am correct.

BTW, you will never trip me up. I am too good for the likes of you.

 

[johnny karate]

I want to know what they thought at the time it happened. That includes Van Romero...

"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse,"

"It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that,"

Now before you tell me what he says after the fact tell me what other evidence he examined to come to his revisionism.

Was it his Presidential appointment?

HI, do you believe Van Romero was at all connected to Interpol, who you've also accused of being coerced into silence? Or do you think that these are merely separate pieces to one big puzzle?

 

[johnny karate]

So why didn't very experienced first responders come to these conclusions at the time they were happening?

Since these same first responders have not come forward in the intervening eight years to proclaim what they experienced was the result of bombs and/or a controlled demolition, do you believe they were coerced into silence? Do you believe the coercion was performed by agents of Interpol in exchange for that agency to be allowed to remain on board the "Global War on Terror gravy train"?

 

[Oscar]

Tri:

Is it that hard of a concept to grasp??? Or is it that you can't imagine anyone doing that because you are a coward, and would run away from a wastebasket fire if it was in your house??

Don't mistake trolls on the internet for real life. In real life they can be ignored or pushed away. On the internet they get their moment. It's hard to know who is being genuine and who is being deceitful. I try to be optimistic about people, but Homeland has worn out his truth card, his moral card and his 'I'm not going to be an ********' card a long time ago.

He's bankrupt. Don't throw him pennies.

 

[triforcharity]

Yes, that what I was saying earlier. They were "loud sounds from an unknown source". There's no way to identify them at this point.

Yes, but deductive reasoning is telling me that if there were 15 different events in that building that COULD have made that noise, and one of those is a bomb, I am going with the 14 others, considering the 14 other ones seem more logical.

 

[triforcharity]

I'd like to throw him something, but it wouldn't end well for him. Something along the lines of a CD device.

 

[Brainache]

they would have heard demolition charges that big in jersey city and brooklyn

let's not forget that millions of windows all over lower Manhattan would have been shattered by these demolition charges as well.

 

[SezMe]

He's bankrupt. Don't throw him pennies.

Words to the wise.

 

[triforcharity]

But its fun sometimes. I mean, is 4:10 AM my time, and I am working a double shift. I gotta be up anyway, so why not have a little fun with him.

Haven't you ever played mindless video games, or played with pointless toys before?? Ie: Rubiex cube, or whatever the correct spelling is?? How about Legos?? (SORRY JUSTIN!!) Its fun, and consumes time. Plus, what else could I be doing?? Watching TV?? Not nearly as fun, and I usually fall asleep and get yelled at. OOPS!!

 

[T.A.M.]

Word terminology for the mentally impaired.

EXPLOSION does not always (or even often) equal EXPLOSIVES

got it truthers.

No one here has ever denied the presents of "EXPLOSIONS" or sounds of "EXPLOSIONS". What has been consistently said here, is there is no evidence of EXPLOSIVES used on 9/11.

we now return you to home room.

TAM

 

[Justin39640]

Word terminology for the mentally impaired.

EXPLOSION does not always (or even often) equal EXPLOSIVES

got it truthers.

No one here has ever denied the presents of "EXPLOSIONS" or sounds of "EXPLOSIONS". What has been consistently said here, is there is no evidence of EXPLOSIVES used on 9/11.

we now return you to home room.

TAM

last night as i went to bed i heard a loud sharp noise that could be described as an "explosion" as it was very loud and very sharp

in reality it was a garbage truck picking up and putting down dumpsters in the neighborhood (i could hear him revving his engine to get more flow in the hydraulics)

 

[deep]

No one here has ever denied the presents of "EXPLOSIONS" or sounds of "EXPLOSIONS". What has been consistently said here, is there is no evidence of EXPLOSIVES used on 9/11.

So the sound of unknown explosions, which could potentially be evidence of explosives, could not possibly be caused by explosives.. because there's no evidence of explosives?

 

[Justin39640]

So the sound of unknown explosions, which could potentially be evidence of explosives, could not possibly be caused by explosives.. because there's no evidence of explosives?

like people pointed out
windows from the SI ferry terminal to the holland tunnel whoulda been blown out
they would have heard them in jersey and brooklyn

the auditory evidence supports no explosives
so does the lack of a shockwave

so no they couldnt potentially be explosives at all
nothing supports that "idea"

 

[dtugg]

So the sound of unknown explosions, which could potentially be evidence of explosives, could not possibly be caused by explosives.. because there's no evidence of explosives?

If explosives were used in the WTC (especially the hundreds of tons that whackos like Niels Harritt say were there) the extremely loud noises would have been recorded on video. There are no such sounds on any video, therefore there were no explosives. Plus there was no evidence found in the rubble.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

So the sound of unknown explosions, which could potentially be evidence of explosives, could not possibly be caused by explosives.. because there's no evidence of explosives?

There were those massive multistory & multi-acre fires though. Oh and the debris that was on fire igniting vehicles at street level. Just in case anyone here has forgotten... I don't know... gigantic fire igniting immense volumes of combustibles and as obvious as the sun, or invisible explosive devices? My bet's on the fire... There is also that little issue about the "hush-a-boom" effect...

 

[newton3376]

So the sound of unknown explosions, which could potentially be evidence of explosives, could not possibly be caused by explosives.. because there's no evidence of explosives?

The problem is the truther argument is something like this...

TROOFER: We KNOW that there were explosives in the building.

SANE PERSON: How do you know that?

TROOFER: People heard explosions!!!

SANE PERSON: But how do you know those sounds were caused by explosives?

TROOFER: Because there were explosives planted in the buildings.

 

[Justin39640]

The problem is the truther argument is something like this...

TROOFER: We KNOW that there were explosives in the building.

SANE PERSON: How do you know that?

TROOFER: People heard explosions!!!

SANE PERSON: But how do you know those sounds were caused by explosives?

TROOFER: Because there were explosives planted in the buildings.

i like the "My Cousin Vinny" brick analogy

Vinny: Look, maybe I could have handled the preliminary a little better, okay? I admit it. But what's most important is winning the case. I could do it. I really could. Let me tell you how, okay? The D.A.'s got to build a case. Building a case is like building a house. Each piece of evidence is just another building block. He wants to make a brick bunker of a building. He wants to use serious, solid-looking bricks, like, like these, right? (puts his hand on the wall)
Bill: Right.
Vinny: Let me show you something. (he holds up a playing card, with the face toward Billy) He's going to show you the bricks. He'll show you they got straight sides. He'll show you how they got the right shape. He'll show them to you in a very special way, so that they appear to have everything a brick should have. But there's one thing he's not gonna show you. (turns the card, so that its edge is toward Billy) When you look at the bricks from the right angle, they're as thin as this playing card. His whole case is an illusion, a magic trick. It has to be an illusion, 'cause you're innocent. Nobody, I mean nobody, pulls the wool over the eyes of a Gambini, especially this one. Give me a chance, one chance. Let me question the first witness. If after that point, you don't think that I'm the best man for the job, fire me then and there. I'll leave quietly, no grudges. All I ask is for that one chance. I think you should give it to me.