• 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.

Witness describes explosions at North Tower

Quad4_72 said:
Red, this is nonsense and you know it. None of the video footage corroborates his story and no other witness testimonies do either. Why would you choose to believe him over hundreds of other witnesses and video footage?
Click to expand...

9/11 "truth" cult fanatics are much like people who believe in flying saucers and alien abduction. They base their laughably preposterous beliefs on unsubstantiated witness testimony. Witnesses are not extraordinary evidence if their claims cannot be corroborated with anything, and if their claims are directly contradicted by facts.

We can all witness the collapse of the towers ourselves, hundreds of times over, with all the video and audio of all three collapses. NO EXPLOSIONS. NO BOMBS.
 
i must have seen the videos of the towers going down 50 times.

never saw or heard anything that looked like a demolition explosion.
 
uke2se said:
This again?

I wonder if we'll have to suffer through 9 more years of stupid people misunderstanding physics and evidence or if it'll die out after the 10 year anniversary.
Click to expand...

I often wonder how long the troofers can keep it up.I have a vision of wheelchair 911 warriors being spoon fed pap by a nurse.
 
So do we have an explosives but no thermate/mite party in this thread?

Can they go to the 'Thermate debate' thread and tell those 'truthers' over there that there were explosions?
 
Quiproquo said:
In the first few years surrounding the 9/11 controversy, the reaction to reports that there had been explosions before and during the destruction of the towers was that there absoloutely were no explosions.
Click to expand...

No. We said that there were none that supported the twoofer twaddle.

Now everybody agrees that "of course there were explosions."
Click to expand...

Well, DUH! We all saw two resulting from the deflagration of the jet fuel. We also have read, repeatedly, an untrained person's description of tow bloody huge backdrafts, and uniformly identified them as such. Do keep up.
 
Quiproquo said:
In the first few years surrounding the 9/11 controversy, the reaction to reports that there had been explosions before and during the destruction of the towers was that there absoloutely were no explosions.

Now everybody agrees that "of course there were explosions."

So if you are wrong once, how can you be sure you are right?
Click to expand...

There were no explosive used to bring down the WTC tower. If you say there were, you are a liar and proved wrong by physics. Should have taken physics, or engineering, but instead you post nonsense about 911, moronic delusions, and you can't help yourself. How many more years of failure did you sign up for? 9 years seems like overkill.

Are you a thermite delusion believer or just plan big bombs did it nonsense kind of guy? I assume you never seen explosives used since you fall for the simile stuff.
 
Last edited:
I'm still trying to remember when we all agreed that there were no explosions. Of friggin' course there were explosions. How could there NOT be explosions?
 
There is still dust rising in the background.

Doofus had time to talk to an architect who had been brought in to comment on it?

Or did he hear one on TV from the dafety of an apartment near where he was interviewed?
 
twinstead said:
3 letters: JFK
Click to expand...

At least JFK is a conspiracy theory that you can believe in without implicating every scientific organization in the country and without saying that everything we know about the laws of physics is wrong. You don't need to be completely off-the-walls insane to be a JFK truther, you just need to be really bad at evidence analysis.

9/11 Truth SHOULD be a different story. "Should be", but somehow isn't.
 
ergo said:
No, but when hundreds of people are saying the same thing, then you have to take that as evidence that something of that nature was occurring, and you investigate. Or you at the very least include that testimony in your reports.
Click to expand...

But I have already conceded that there may have been explosions within the Twin Towers. Included within my concession, however, is an explanation of why it doesn't require me to admit that there were any bombs or thermite in the Towers.
 
Even a quick survey of witness videos shows numerous undusty eyewitnesses.

Another ten minutes of my life wasted debunking bee dunkers.

It does become pointless after a while. :rolleyes:
 
 
ergo said:
Even a quick survey of witness videos shows numerous undusty eyewitnesses.
Click to expand...

Yes there were many witnesses far enough away not to be enveloped by the dust cloud. But your buddy says the collapse was 'right above' him, as you have already been told. It really makes little difference except to go toward his (lack of) credibility. No other witness heard what he heard and no mic picked it up.

Dunk that bee.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
When two large buildings are engulfed in multifloor fires where gas lines are severed, and god knows what chemicals or electronics have been cluster ------'d by an impact and fuel deflagration. Why would extensive reports of explosions be unusual in the first place?
Click to expand...

There were gas lines in the Towers? :)

Anyway, your theory would suggest that we would hear bang-bang-bang types of explosions in every kind of building fire, especially those with only a few floors burning.
 
brazenlilraisin said:
Yes there were many witnesses far enough away not to be enveloped by the dust cloud. But your buddy says the collapse was 'right above' him, as you have already been told. It really makes little difference except to go toward his (lack of) credibility. No other witness heard what he heard and no mic picked it up.
Click to expand...

Well, again, you've already been proven wrong on that point, several times over.

I see absolutely no reason to question his account. He's much more credible than the likes of bee dunkers.
 
ergo said:
Even a quick survey of witness videos shows numerous undusty eyewitnesses.

Another ten minutes of my life wasted debunking bee dunkers.

It does become pointless after a while. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

It's not everyone's position that the witness was bogus, or that similar witnesses do not exist. This is a strawman for us all except leftysergeant. You've debunked nothing of significance.
 
BTW, Mr. Lemos obviously is dusty. As dusty as many of the other witnesses and emergency personnel you see in the videos.
 
Last edited:
adkinsjr said:
This is a strawman for us all except leftysergeant. You've debunked nothing of significance.
Click to expand...

Lefty and Trifor. And Big Al would probably chime in, too, if he was here. Glad you didn't need to be shown the obvious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom