• 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

The Platypus said:
When i watched a house burn down the street years ago, the fire engulfed the house and over the time i watch it burn there were several loud booms and pops...

In the fantasy world of conspiracy theorists, this could only have been a controlled demolition inside job conspiracy too?

How does one go from someone hearing a loud noise during situation like 911, to, gee the loud noise could only have been a bomb planted by secret in a massive inside job conspiracy?

Talk about a wild stretch, that's just ridiculous.
Click to expand...

True, but one must admit this whole controversy is beyond bizarre, no?
 
Quiproquo said:
:)

Daniele Ganser
Click to expand...

Seems to be less of a conspiracy analyst and more of a snake oil salesman. Apparently a "revisionist" historian who theorizes about Pearl Harbor being an inside job as well as 9/11. Looks like a push for attention to me.
 
Quiproquo said:
I don't think that is evidence at all, and I believe you know it.
Click to expand...

Learn the difference between evidence and proof. This is evidence that 9/11 is a dangerous delusion, but it isn't proof. If it happens continuously, we can call it proof.

Quiproquo said:
The crushing mass majority of twoofers are peace-loving air heads.
Click to expand...

Citation needed. Not so much on the second part.
 
uke2se said:
Seems to be less of a conspiracy analyst and more of a snake oil salesman. Apparently a "revisionist" historian who theorizes about Pearl Harbor being an inside job as well as 9/11. Looks like a push for attention to me.
Click to expand...

uke2se said:
Learn the difference between evidence and proof. This is evidence that 9/11 is a dangerous delusion, but it isn't proof. If it happens continuously, we can call it proof.
Click to expand...


Hominus argumentum mirat

Shall I put you on ignore?
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
BTW, Mr. Lemos obviously is dusty. As dusty as many of the other witnesses and emergency personnel you see in the videos.
Click to expand...
No, he isn't. I think they used the muddied color just to help cover that up.
 
Quiproquo said:
True, but one must admit this whole controversy is beyond bizarre, no?
Click to expand...

The conspiracy kooks creating the controversy and thinking they are accomplishing anything more than making themselves look dishonest, stupid and crazy is what is bizarre.
 
For all we know the perpetrators could have rigged things to blow up inside the towers,
i am sure you could go inside a building and rig gas pipes or steam pipes to explode for
example they could have rigged anything which could explode inside the building, could
you for example remove the circuit breaker from a generator and get someone like an electrician
to modify the generator and re configure the it so it would receive a massive surge of power in an
emergency event like what happened on 911 and then blow up once the electrical system of the
building becomes damaged or compromised?

I am sure if you really wanted to destroy a building set fire to it, you could also
rig things up to explode to create additional damage and kill and injure people if you
did not have access to explosives, did not know how to make them, or did not want to
use bombs, you could use that as a secondary option, and all the physical evidence of
you having rigged these things to explode would be destroyed in the collapse pulverized gone
wouldn't this be better than just planting bombs everywhere and making it seem less
obvious?
 
Sakrament noch Mal! I have just watched half an hour of the lamest presentation of twaddle in twooferdom.
ergo said:
Just a sample of other videos of witnesses describing explosions:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8XBxw7k8rk
Click to expand...

Great introduction. YT user "foghaze" lives in a fog of stupidity. Take the first "witness" in this clip. Some dude with a foreign accent insists that there was no second plane, but a bomb. How the hell would he know? We saw the vbloody airplane on live TV. He's an opinionated passerby, nothing more. Not admissible evidence. 0:41 and 0:56 witnesses do not give us any context as to where they were or what time they are describing. Not admissible evidence. Rick Sanchez says that police have reason to suspect that there was a bomb in the basement. This is probably based on the explosions in the basement which anybody with any knowledge of fire science knows was a backdraft. Had they had time to analyze the injuries suffered, they would know that this was not a bomb. The time frame suggests that this was before the second collapse. Not much time in terms of fire investigations, and the FBI is hardly the leading authority on sight in that time frame.

Jack Kelly thinks that there were bombs simultaneously with the strikes. We know that the firsat back draft occurred almost at the same time and the second about the time that Schroeder arrived from a station across the street. This would mean that he arrived there in the interval between the first blast that willie heard and the second, because the second occurred in the express elevator as Schroeder entered the staging area.

There is no context for Pat Dawson's report. Inadmissible.

2:25 is the editied pay phone scene. Most experts on audiop conclude that it sounds wrong. The man facing the approaching fire fighter seems not to even flinch, only the one who is facing away looks surprised, but not very, when he is adressed from behind. This is inconsistant with there having just been a horrendous explosion nearby.

2:45:dl:

That was at Stuyvesant High School, blocks away, and it was a prank bomb report that there was a bomb in the school building. We have discussed this, with the five or ten minutes on either side of this clip as evidence, in other threads.

The man at 2:56 is Kevin McNiel. He was on a floor just below the first impact and was evacuating down the stairs. He will appear again in this response, in context. (Too bad for Da Twoof.)

Witness at 3:23 was five blocks away and heard "thuds." He should have heard sharp "BANGS!" See the Joe Torres clip later.

3:35 The female reporter mentioned one massive explosion, then trying to leave later(probably after the dust cleared, then hearing another. You can tell by the dust that at least one tower is gone, but I would think that it was botrh at this point and she has no clue yet what had happened. In all, none of the witnesses who described the collapse as an "explosion" here knew that it was a collapse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvVOKntyCU0
Click to expand...

This is part of the Torres video. He introduced us to Kevin McNiel. McNiel tells us that he was just a few floors below the first impact and and that he evacuated by the stairs. That puts him on the mezzanine just as the south tower falls. We know what the "explosion" was that he heard. He, at this point, might not have known it yet. It took well over fifteen minutes before Pfeifer figured it out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xgZYTGkh1M
Click to expand...

I have no idea what this is supposed to prove.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JId79I7-b0
Click to expand...

This man and McNiel apparently exited about the same time. He mentions that the "explosison" moved a massive amount of air. This is consistant with the collapse of a building displacing a lot of air and with what Hess and Jennings experienced in WTC 7. Not a bloody bit consistant with a bomb.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5F2QOjwkQ8
Click to expand...

We have discussed this crap elsewhere. Nothing there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D17QP2kna1I
Click to expand...

This is inadmissible without better documentation of the context, but the doofus appears not to have seen the plane, but may have been trying to enter the siouth tower when the fire ball hit the basement. He appears still to be unaware of some facts already known to the public.


I shall take up the rest of this rubbish in a bit, if this migraine goes away after a cup of coffee and a smoke.

Why would I be getting a migraine just reading what some people believe?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdc0OsLN_nU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A9X_8flGeM (actual audio of, with news commentary about it)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4U4RJt0rKDw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Adm0DjIMec

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5ZomqWrnnM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlAkF7E2nCs&feature=fvsr (firefighters)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzntuqLBOR8
 
Last edited:
thecritta said:
For all we know the perpetrators could have rigged things to blow up inside the towers,
i am sure you could go inside a building and rig gas pipes or steam pipes to explode for
example they could have rigged anything which could explode inside the building, could
you for example remove the circuit breaker from a generator and get someone like an electrician
to modify the generator and re configure the it so it would receive a massive surge of power in an
emergency event like what happened on 911 and then blow up once the electrical system of the
building becomes damaged or compromised?

I am sure if you really wanted to destroy a building set fire to it, you could also
rig things up to explode to create additional damage and kill and injure people if you
did not have access to explosives, did not know how to make them, or did not want to
use bombs, you could use that as a secondary option, and all the physical evidence of
you having rigged these things to explode would be destroyed in the collapse pulverized gone
wouldn't this be better than just planting bombs everywhere and making it seem less
obvious?
Click to expand...

So you're admitting that the fires were enough to bring down the Twin Towers, and that the explosions were secondary to the collapses, but you think the explosions were set off by the conspiractors just to be a bit more evil?

Dave
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
So you're admitting that the fires were enough to bring down the Twin Towers, and that the explosions were secondary to the collapses, but you think the explosions were set off by the conspiractors just to be a bit more evil?

Dave
Click to expand...

Maybe the fires where enough to bring down the buildings, maybe one perpetrator preferably an engineer someone very smart though that if you could manage to fly a large commercial airliner into the towers causing a significant amount of damage and big enough fires that they might be able to bring the buildings down, who knows and if the towers did not come down as expected the fires would just burn out and after when the firefighters engineers investigators when the asses and look at all the damage inside they would find no charges no bombs of any sort no incriminating evidence to pin on the perpetrators, maybe the whole idea in the first place was to bring the towers down using just planes jet fuel and fires an extremely clever plan and if it failed to work and the towers still stood no evidence of a planned demolition would be left to find.

Just think about it if they did plan on doing it this way and it worked which it did, that would eliminate the whole problem of setting up a planned demolition an implosion which would be quiet hard and complex for obvious for obvious reasons that have been stated over and over again, for example like the cuts in the steel from explosive charges and which would have been very obvious when they went off and if they did it the way i mentioned who would ever know how could anyone ever figure it out most people would probably not even think come to the conclusion that they did it this way, and by just using planes jet fuel fire and extremely accelerated temperatures who would ever know it would be almost impossible to prove, to prove it you would need a confession from someone that they did it planned it this way,or either you would need plans on paper or e mails or like files from a computer like word or notepad documents power point PDF documents to prove it and the thing is that type of evidence can easily be destroyed like paper documents that is easy burning shredding the documents having someone destroy the computer hard drives or any other external media that the plans could be stored on who know in the end it is to hard to tell weather the towers where bought down in some sort of controlled demolition or not or whether it was the fire we may never know the truth whatever it maybe that is why we need a new investigation with subpoena power and a hand over of every single document that the government has related to 911 i have always thought one way to find out whether the government was involved would be to have a hand over of all documents non spared, but no they do not want to do that do they all they want to do is stone wall us try to deny every single FOIA request for the freedom of information for every single scrap of information and evidence that they have related to the events of 911.

By the way you spelled conspirators wrong try leaving out the "C" before the "T" next time towards the end of the word conspirators.
 
thecritta said:
Maybe the fires where enough to bring down the buildings, maybe one perpetrator preferably an engineer someone very smart though that if you could manage to fly a large commercial airliner into the towers causing a significant amount of damage and big enough fires that they might be able to bring the buildings down, who knows and if the towers did not come down as expected the fires would just burn out and after when the firefighters engineers investigators when the asses and look at all the damage inside they would find no charges no bombs of any sort no incriminating evidence to pin on the perpetrators, maybe the whole idea in the first place was to bring the towers down using just planes jet fuel and fires an extremely clever plan and if it failed to work and the towers still stood no evidence of a planned demolition would be left to find.

Just think about it if they did plan on doing it this way and it worked which it did, that would eliminate the whole problem of setting up a planned demolition an implosion which would be quiet hard and complex for obvious for obvious reasons that have been stated over and over again, for example like the cuts in the steel from explosive charges and which would have been very obvious when they went off and if they did it the way i mentioned who would ever know how could anyone ever figure it out most people would probably not even think come to the conclusion that they did it this way, and by just using planes jet fuel fire and extremely accelerated temperatures who would ever know it would be almost impossible to prove, to prove it you would need a confession from someone that they did it planned it this way,or either you would need plans on paper or e mails or like files from a computer like word or notepad documents power point PDF documents to prove it and the thing is that type of evidence can easily be destroyed like paper documents that is easy burning shredding the documents having someone destroy the computer hard drives or any other external media that the plans could be stored on who know in the end it is to hard to tell weather the towers where bought down in some sort of controlled demolition or not or whether it was the fire we may never know the truth whatever it maybe that is why we need a new investigation with subpoena power and a hand over of every single document that the government has related to 911 i have always thought one way to find out whether the government was involved would be to have a hand over of all documents non spared, but no they do not want to do that do they all they want to do is stone wall us try to deny every single FOIA request for the freedom of information for every single scrap of information and evidence that they have related to the events of 911.

By the way you spelled conspirators wrong try leaving out the "C" before the "T" next time towards the end of the word conspirators.
Click to expand...

Ok, so the towers were brought down by aircraft impact and fire BUT THERE WAS STILL A GUBMINT CONSPIRACY DAMMIT!

:D
 
OK, I'm going to try to translate it. Here's the best I can do.

edited version of thecritta's post said:
Maybe the fires were enough to bring down the buildings. Maybe one perpetrator, preferably an engineer or someone very smart, thought that if you could manage to fly a large commercial airliner into the towers, causing a significant amount of damage and big enough fires, that they might be able to bring the buildings down. Who knows? And if the towers did not come down as expected, the fires would just burn out. Afterwards, when the firefighters, engineers and investigators look at all the damage inside, they would find no charges, no bombs of any sort, no incriminating evidence to pin on the perpetrators. Maybe the whole idea in the first place was to bring the towers down using just planes jet fuel and fires. An extremely clever plan, and if it failed to work and the towers still stood, no evidence of a planned demolition would be left to find.

Just think about it; if they did plan on doing it this way and it worked, which it did, that would eliminate the whole problem of setting up a planned demolition, an implosion which would be quite hard and complex for obvious reasons that have been stated over and over again. For example, the cuts in the steel from explosive charges, which would have been very obvious when they went off. If they did it the way I mentioned, who would ever know? How could anyone ever figure it out? Most people would probably not even think, let alone come to the conclusion that they did it this way. By just using planes, jet fuel fire and extremely accelerated temperatures, who would ever know? It would be almost impossible to prove. To prove it you would need a confession from someone that they planned it this way,or you would need plans on paper, e-mails or files from a computer (like Word or Notepad documents, Power Point or PDF documents) to prove it. The thing is. that type of evidence can easily be destroyed, like paper documents. That is easy - burning, shredding the documents, having someone destroy the computer hard drives or any other external media that the plans could be stored on. Who knows? In the end it is to hard to tell whether the towers were brought down in some sort of controlled demolition or not, or whether it was the fire. We may never know the truth, whatever it may be. That is why we need a new investigation, with subpoena power and a hand over of every single document that the government has related to 911. I have always thought that one way to find out whether the government was involved would be to have a hand over of all documents, none spared, but no; they do not want to do that do that. All they want to do is stonewall us, try to deny every single FOIA request for every single scrap of information and evidence that they have related to the events of 911.
Click to expand...

Now, isn't that a lot clearer?

thecritta said:
By the way you spelled conspirators wrong try leaving out the "C" before the "T" next time towards the end of the word conspirators.
Click to expand...

By the way, I made about 110 edits to your semi-comprehensible stream of consciousness, all of which were equally or more serious. I won't list them all, but I suggest you look up a biblical quotation about motes in people's eyes.

Now that we've got a readable text, I see that you're admitting that fire and impact damage could have brought the towers down. And there's one rather important passage I'd like to highlight:

edited version of thecritta's post said:
Maybe one perpetrator, preferably an engineer or someone very smart, thought that if you could manage to fly a large commercial airliner into the towers, causing a significant amount of damage and big enough fires, that they might be able to bring the buildings down. Who knows?
Click to expand...

Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, if I recall correctly, both have engineering qualifications. Both have university degrees, and are therefore at least resonably smart. So, choose one of those two, and you've got your perpetrator.

It seems that your only remaining cognitive impediment is an inability to believe that any evil act is not perpetrated by the US government.

Dave
 
You mean that every bad event on Earth, every hurricane, tsunami, mass murder, intrigue, double crossing, coup--Isn't perpetrated by the US government?

Why, that's CRAZY talk Dave!
 
ergo said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, and yes.
 
Quiproquo said:
Triforcharity and brazenlilraisin you both offer good observations. Most interesting answers pertaining to the topic I have read so far. ;)

Here are my revised judgements after viewing the video several times:

1. I am not sure of this eye witness' testimony anymore. Is he sincere? His demeanor is suspicious. Too calm? too controlled?

2. I looked up the name he gives the interviewer and cannot find him (at least on google.com): Paul Lamoss or Paul Lamosse?

3. How has this video "suddenly" appeared on youtube in 2010 (poster: wearechangenj?)?

4. Why can we not see the face of the interviewer? Who is the interviewer?

5. The dialogue between the two characters is incongruous: was there already a controversy on 9/11 about 9/11? (ex: 0:49 They told me afterwards it was not an explosion (...) I was talking to one of the architects that they pulled in (...) Cause he was talking to me about it, he said what did you see (wtf?)... Who pulled in an architect? Why was he talking to this guy?)

6. Is it a set? (always a question worth asking, no?)

Watching the whole interview again I am forced to ask myself: is it bogus? :confused::confused::confused:
Click to expand...

I don't think it's faked. I think they guy is making **** up to get on TV. I also notice when I google his name (Paul Lamos) my first 5 pages of hits are all conspiracy sites, not a single MSM source at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom