• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories

The unending claim of "secondary explosions"

MrFliop

Thinker
Joined
Dec 4, 2012
Messages
212
This is probably THE SINGLE GREATEST EXAMPLE of 9/11 truthers taking things out of context. And when they're not taking quotes out of context, they're just showing video of random explosions going off in the debris pile AFTER the buildings had collapsed (from damaged gas lines, gas tanks, etc), and making it seem like those explosions were bombs inside the towers which was part of a demolition and often times it's not necessarily taking quotes out of context, just leaving the FACTS out of context. Many witnesses talk about secondary explosions, referring to ones AFTER the towers were down. Well, right away you should be telling yourself that if random explosions are going off AFTER the buildings had collapsed, then obviously it's something OTHER THAN a controlled demolition taking place. I mean... duh. What these secondary explosions were caused by was gas lines, deisel tanks, stored chemicals, oxygen tanks, police officers firing their pistols to gain access to locked buildings, electrical explosions, etc. etc. etc. Also, stuff was exploding inside the building as well, like transformers and chemicals and elevators plummeting and bodies hitting the ground, etc.

There is also a video of Rick Sanchez talking about police officers being wary of a suspicious device near the intersection of W. Broadway, Hudson, and Chambers (which is 5 blocks north of the northern edge of the WTC site... 4 if you include WTC7). There were many false alarms and fears of suspicious devices being bombs, which turned out to be nothing. There was one at Stuyvescant High School, just a few blocks away.

Next, it shows Sanchez talking about how firefighters have reason to suspect that maybe one of the explosions at the WTC was caused by a bomb. He even stresses MAY have been. To truthers, "may have been" means "definitely was". There was a lot of confusion in the immediate aftermath. A lot of firefighters who were at the scene until the sun went down, never knew that either tower collapsed!!!! As unbelievable as that might sound. A lot never knew a second plane hit.

It's also interesting that on the afternoon of 9/11, Rodriguez was on CNN saying that the explosion in the basement happened AFTER the plane hit and was caused by jet fuel shooting down the elevator shafts, then told the exact same story to the 9/11 Commission, and only completely changed his story in 2005, when he started making a living off of his story (through presentations and DVD sales).

But truthers also claim that elevators did not go from top to bottom. However the blueprints of the tower settle this once and for all. The local elevator shafts did not extend top to bottom, but many others did. Cars 6 and 7 went top to bottom (in both towers), plus there were several freight elevators that went top to bottom. Also, Flight 175 struck the South Tower just low enough (the Sky Lobby) that much of the fuel was able to dump into the express elevator shafts, which DID go all the way to the lobby. So... it just depends on the particular shaft. Some did go top to bottom, some didn't.

They’re also wrong about it not being possible for the jet fuel to reach all the way down to the lobby and basement. A huge section of the NIST report titled "Jet Fuel Dispersion" calculated how much jet fuel was burned up in the initial explosion as soon as the plane hit (only about 30%), and calculated where and how much of the jet fuel was dispersed elsewhere. There was plenty remaining to send fireballs down certain elevator shafts. The following quotes are arguments I’ve heard made by truthers which I will address.

"""1) Most of the fuel burned off at impact, which nist already admits to.""""
Wrong, this is another popular straw-man argument made by people who haven't even read the official report, right there with people who think NIST claims the fires melted the steel. NIST calculated, based on the amount of oxygen available, that only 30% of the jet fuel burned off in the initial explosions.

"""2) Fuel is already burning, it was not concentrated and unburned and then ignited in the lobby. burning fuel should have been burned up by the time it even got there."""""
This is them basically keep saying that it doesn't seem to you like there was enough jet fuel to create a fireball that would reach all the way down to the lobby. Give me CALCULATIONS, not assumptions. NIST does.

"""3) None of the floors between the impact zone and the lobby were "exploded" due to this fuel."""

Again, wrong, there were about 17 floors in between, on which fireballs exploded into the floors.

The documentary is called "9/11" by Jules and Gideon Naudet. They were embedded with the Engine 7 firehouse. They were responding to a gas leak when a plane flies overhead and crashes into the North Tower (this is the only video - basically - which captured the first crash), they hop in the firetruck and set up a command post in the lobby of the tower about 2 mins later. A little over an hour later, the South Tower collapses and the North Tower lobby is heavily damaged. Chief Pfeifer orders the evacuation of the North Tower. Outside, they have no idea that the South Tower has collapsed. They walk north and the North Tower collapses. To anyone who watches the documentary, it's obvious that the event which caused the "collapse" of the lobby in the North Tower was the South Tower collapsing, not an explosion (even though a lot of firefighters initially assumed that. They were indoors, so they could not see the South Tower collapse).

Neither one of us has to speculate about this at all. There exists a video tape showing EXACTLY what happened at the staging area inside the North Tower lobby. Nowhere in the video tape does the lobby just spotaneously collapse on them, EXCEPT when the South Tower collapses. This did indeed cause massive damage inside the North Tower lobby (Father Mychael Judge, the Chaplain of the FDNY, was standing right there in the staging area and was killed when this occured). It also covered everyone in dust, and you can see from the video that the men are covered in dust. It also seems obvious that when he says "the whole building just collapsed on us inside the lobby", that he meant he was inside the NT lobby when the ST fell, since he would have been killed if he was in the ST lobby at that point.

In that video, it's hard to know which lobby (which tower) they're talking about, but because he says he was at the staging area, it seems to me that he was talking about the North Tower. The only video tape footage from inside either tower was shot by Jules Naudet, who was at the staging area in the North Tower. The only significant event which could be interpreted as the lobby collapsing, is when the South Tower collapses and dust and debris shoots into the North Tower lobby. Most people in the North Tower lobby thought it was a secondary explosion. Almost no one knew the South Tower collapsed. Even when Jules and Chief Pfeifer walk outside, they still think the South Tower is just behind the other building and they aren't sure what it was that caused such devastation in the lobby. This is probably what the firefighters in the video are referring to. At no other point in the Naudet video does the lobby "collapse".

In sum, they were probably either talking about 1.) seeing the aftermath of the explosions from the jet fuel shooting down the elevator shafts when the planes hit, 2.) were talking about hearing noises which sounded like explosions and bombs going off while they were in the lobby which they later found out were bodies hitting the ground outside, (contd)

or 3.) they were talking about what happened in the North Tower lobby when the South Tower collapsed. Also, you should know that almost every second of the events in the North Tower lobby were captured on video by Jules Naudet, who was WITH the firefighters AT the command post, and nowhere in the video is there any explosion that gets their attention (EXCEPT when bodies hit the ground and EXCEPT when the South Tower collapses).

Case Closed

PS, if you are going to argue that a bomb went off in the lobby and caused the lobby to collapse... despite the video camera IN the lobby (and the countless others that were right outside) not detecting such an explosion, WHAT WOULD BE THE PURPOSE??? The collapse in both buildings started near the top. It didn't start at the lobby.
 
Actually, my favorite are the claims of "we can see/hear "squibs" going off.

Squibs are supposed to be little explosions used to initiate much bigger explosions. So we can we only see/hear the "squibs"?
 
A&E (aka conspiracy dolts) discover Simile, again

Reports of Ground Zero "explosions" update.

The folks over at the A&E forum have produced a compilation of 36 reporters at Ground Zero
reporting explosions and secondary explosions live on September eleventh 2001
https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence...ought-us-the-twin-towers-explosive-demolition

OMG, A&E conspiracy theorists who have no clue 19 terrorists did 9/11 with four aircraft, They (A&E dolts) discovered simile... wowzer progress


How do you find these idiots with no clue?
A&E continue to spread insane claims. A&E have no clue simile is not evidence for their failed conspiracy theories.
 
The explosion in the basement that Rodriguez witnessed were likely not fuel, but main power riser electrical circuit control shorting out and exploding.... same for the explosions on the sub station of the Con Ed at the base of 7wtc.
 
Reports of Ground Zero "explosions" update.

The folks over at the A&E forum have produced a compilation of 36 reporters at Ground Zero
reporting explosions and secondary explosions live on September eleventh 2001
https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence...ought-us-the-twin-towers-explosive-demolition

I find it interesting that a number of those witnesses report hearing explosions after the buildings had been hit by the planes, or after the collapses had started.
No, I'm not a demolition expert, or even an engineer, but I would have thought, as a layman, that if a building was brought down by explosives, the explosions should have happened before the collapses started, and not after.
Can you explain this for me?
 
I see they also mention the 118 mentions of explosions again.

I looked at all 503 interviews from the first responders, and when you actually read them all, not one of them thinks explosives were used (Maybe looks like at some points).

http://jay-911.blogspot.com/
 
Who cares what a bunch of reporters thought on that day if it was explosives? Do they still believe this?
 
Reports of Ground Zero "explosions" update.

The folks over at the A&E forum have produced a compilation of 36 reporters at Ground Zero
reporting explosions and secondary explosions live on September eleventh 2001
https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence...ought-us-the-twin-towers-explosive-demolition

Could you do us a favor and identify those among reports of explosions and secondary explosions which may be consistent in timing, loudness, number and brisance with explosive demolition charges? Thank you.

Because, you see, for years now, I have time and again asked Truthers this question - which reports or sound records of "explosions" on 9/11 are consistent in timing, loudness, number and brisance with explosive demolition charges? - and NOBODY EVER identified only just one such explosion either in the witness record or in the video/sound record that survived more than 3 seconds of cursory scrutiny. None.

The historic record of 9/11 so far is actually completely void of evidence for explosive charges associated with any of the collapses. (I am sure you have been painfully aware of this reality for years)


I pre-preemptively wish to thank you very sincerely for either your non-answer, or your completely and transparently evasive answer, which will not, in fact, contain any reference whatsoever to any witness report or physical recording of any explosion(s) that may plausibly be consistent in timing, loudness, number and brisance with explosive demolition charges :)
 
The explosion in the basement that Rodriguez witnessed were likely not fuel, but main power riser electrical circuit control shorting out and exploding.... same for the explosions on the sub station of the Con Ed at the base of 7wtc.

So what?
Even if those rumblings that sounded like heavy furniture moved about the floor had been explosive charges going off in the basements, they have nothing whatsoever to do with the initiation or progression of any of the collapses - i.e. they were not explosive demolition charges:
  • Not consistent in timing, because they were heard more than an hour before any collapse occurred
  • Not consistent in loudness, for no one down there suffered any barotrauma, and no such loud sounds were recorded or witnessed outside the towers.
  • Not consistent in number, for one or two charges do nothing to bring those structures down
  • Not consistent in brisance, for "rumbling" does not describe the very sharp an short sound wave of a shockwave from high explosives.
There is no need to identify the source of the sound that Rodriguez heard. It's unreliable earwitness recollection to start with - everything about his story can easily be mistaken.
 
MSM lie through their teeth and are not to be treated as reliable sources of history - unless you can spin them to suit your own fringe agenda.
 
Originally Posted by Jaytje46
I see they also mention the 118 mentions of explosions again.

I looked at all 503 interviews from the first responders, and when you actually read them all, not one of them thinks explosives were used (Maybe looks like at some points).

http://jay-911.blogspot.com/


YES That would be the work of Graeme MacQueen
http://www.journalof911studies.com/a...radeCenter.pdf
[excerpt]
The oral histories constitute about 12,000 pages of testimony by 503 FDNY firefighters,
emergency medical technicians and paramedics
collected from early October, 2001 to late January, 2002.
"...Initially, the city of New York refused to release this material,
but after a lawsuit by the New York Times and some of the
9/11 victims’ families the city was ordered to release them.
The New York Times then posted them on its internet site,
where they have been available (with some deletions) to the public since August, 2005.[/excerpt]


Q Why would witness testimonies be deleted?

A Itsa thecret


Q How many deletions ?


A Itsa thecret


Q who decided what firemens testimonies should be deleted ?

A Itsa thecret


Q Can the thinking members of the public view the 12,000 pages of testimomies in total without deletions or redactions ?


A NO !
 
Last edited:
Reports of Ground Zero "explosions" update.

The folks over at the A&E forum have produced a compilation of 36 reporters at Ground Zero
reporting explosions and secondary explosions live on September eleventh 2001

Reports of Ground Zero "locomotives" update.

The folks over at this old blogspot page have produced a compilation of several firefighters claiming to have heard and seen TRAINS in the World Trade Center towers on September eleventh, 2001.

OK, now what?
 
The explosion in the basement that Rodriguez witnessed were likely not fuel, but main power riser electrical circuit control shorting out and exploding.... same for the explosions on the sub station of the Con Ed at the base of 7wtc.

I won't call myself a truther anymore, since apparently one has to believe the 1st plane hit after the secondary explosions, (see thread) however....

I did spend way too much time looking at this first event, while still courting a conspiracy theory, as detailed in my book (68 MB) between pages 100-139. We know that when the first plane hit (as well as when the 2nd plane hit), "Two WTC open/auto (O/A) 13 kW feeders went off" going by a 9/11 commission document from Con Edison. http://cryptome.org/nara/coned-04-0226.pdf -- Yet we also know there was fuel and a conflagration in the lobby. The same fuel burned Felipe David (the man in Rodriguez's story/stories) on B1, exploding into the mall. It also tore into B4 coming from the 6/7 cars' pit door.

A few lobby reports:

“Baffled, Ronnie peered through the revolving door into the lobby of the north tower. He could see it was filling with black haze.” Coming towards him then was Jennieann Maffeo, naked, all black and red, in agony, the zipper of her burned-off, melted garment looking “as though it were the zipper to her own body. [...] Suddenly, Jennieann told Ronnie, something bright and intensely hot enveloped her, a vapor. She thought it had dropped down the elevator shaft.” (Hampton Sides, Americana: Dispatches from the New Frontier, Anchor Books, 2004.

"I walked out the revolving door from the lobby... and I had no sooner walked out the door where I heard a whooshing, roaring noise.... I looked – I heard the boom and the ground tremble and the next thing I know I was looking up at the roof and I'm seeing stuff coming off the roof. I figured my best bet would be to get back into the building.... I had no sooner gone back into the revolving door when a – all the sudden it seemed like the whole lobby, the door I was in and everything filled up with a yellowish, brownish combustible mixture. It didn't really smell any different, but it wasn't – it took so quickly to happen, it was like a tenth of a second, and the next thing I know it was a major explosion, of which I'm now thrown back out through both of these uh, the revolving door and outside." - Kenneth Summers on NBC, from his hospital bed.

"I was walking through the mall toward Tower One to get to the elevator. The lights flickered. I stopped in my tracks and looked around. I saw a brown cloud coming down the center corridor in the lobby, and I feared for my safety. The brown cloud had a heavy density and reached from floor to ceiling. It looked to me like it was both smoke and debris. It first came from the center corridor, but by the time it reached the revolving doors (a split second later) it seemed to come from every direction. At this point, the revolving doors exploded. They seemed to vaporize." - NIST NCSTAR 1-7, p. 76, "Interview 1000046” (NIST 2004)
 
Reports of Ground Zero "locomotives" update.

The folks over at this old blogspot page have produced a compilation of several firefighters claiming to have heard and seen TRAINS in the World Trade Center towers on September eleventh, 2001.

OK, now what?


Hot dam Carlitos, I've been searching for a classic example of a true
simile and I think you just supplied it.
The 9-11 debunking squads have labeled all references to explosions as
similes and I required an example that exemplified a genuine simile for
comparison. Thank You

Now, What knowledge can be gained by dissecting and perusing obvious
similes as reported?
 
Why are A&E not able to grasp reality? ignorance or greed

Hot dam Carlitos, I've been searching for a classic example of a true
simile and I think you just supplied it.
The 9-11 debunking squads have labeled all references to explosions as
similes and I required an example that exemplified a genuine simile for
comparison. Thank You

Now, What knowledge can be gained by dissecting and perusing obvious
similes as reported?

A&E spread lies and make money from fooling gullible people too lazy to think for themselves.

The Idiots at A&E turn hearsay, sounded like, into a vast conspiracy of explosives planted by people they can't name. How do bogus movements find so many idiots to propagate the dumbest claims?

Furthermore, the 21 instances of eyewitness reporting, all of which contain spontaneous descriptions of the phenomena the reporters witnessed, strongly corroborate the overwhelming scientific evidence that explosives were used to destroy the Twin Towers.

This is not evidence, sounded like an explosion is not proof of explosives.

A&E continue to prove there are gullible people who fall for the most ridiculous claims born in ignorance and deceit.

BTW, if the WTC fantasy of explosives was true, it would have been solved in a few days.

A&E, have no clue what sounded like means. You and A&E never had, and never will have evidence for explosives. There is only evidence for 19 terrorists, and four planes. Better luck with Bigfoot, you can use the same evidence = to nothing

Why does A&E spit on those who died on 9/11 due to the acts of 19 terrorists by spreading the dumbest lies? Got a clue yet? Do you believe these delusional claims?
 
Completely expected from people who have never witnessed real explosive detonation.

Indeed to many/all that had never been around the chaos of exploding devices of all kinds detonating within "arms-length".
For many years I have wanted to take some of these explosion claiming truth leaders onto a demolition training range.

Let off a couple of lengths of det cord and a few lumps of HE.

They have NEVER heard the real thing. And the distinctive "crack" is unmistakeable.

Once heard never forgotten. And after someone has heard the real thing NEVER again can they by mistake or ignorance claim "explosive". They would have to deliberately lie.

Sure most of them wouldn't hesitate but....
 
I won't call myself a truther anymore, since apparently one has to believe the 1st plane hit after the secondary explosions, (see thread) however....

I did spend way too much time looking at this first event, while still courting a conspiracy theory, as detailed in my book (68 MB) between pages 100-139. We know that when the first plane hit (as well as when the 2nd plane hit), "Two WTC open/auto (O/A) 13 kW feeders went off" going by a 9/11 commission document from Con Edison. http://cryptome.org/nara/coned-04-0226.pdf -- Yet we also know there was fuel and a conflagration in the lobby. The same fuel burned Felipe David (the man in Rodriguez's story/stories) on B1, exploding into the mall. It also tore into B4 coming from the 6/7 cars' pit door.

A few lobby reports:

“Baffled, Ronnie peered through the revolving door into the lobby of the north tower. He could see it was filling with black haze.” Coming towards him then was Jennieann Maffeo, naked, all black and red, in agony, the zipper of her burned-off, melted garment looking “as though it were the zipper to her own body. [...] Suddenly, Jennieann told Ronnie, something bright and intensely hot enveloped her, a vapor. She thought it had dropped down the elevator shaft.” (Hampton Sides, Americana: Dispatches from the New Frontier, Anchor Books, 2004.

"I walked out the revolving door from the lobby... and I had no sooner walked out the door where I heard a whooshing, roaring noise.... I looked – I heard the boom and the ground tremble and the next thing I know I was looking up at the roof and I'm seeing stuff coming off the roof. I figured my best bet would be to get back into the building.... I had no sooner gone back into the revolving door when a – all the sudden it seemed like the whole lobby, the door I was in and everything filled up with a yellowish, brownish combustible mixture. It didn't really smell any different, but it wasn't – it took so quickly to happen, it was like a tenth of a second, and the next thing I know it was a major explosion, of which I'm now thrown back out through both of these uh, the revolving door and outside." - Kenneth Summers on NBC, from his hospital bed.

"I was walking through the mall toward Tower One to get to the elevator. The lights flickered. I stopped in my tracks and looked around. I saw a brown cloud coming down the center corridor in the lobby, and I feared for my safety. The brown cloud had a heavy density and reached from floor to ceiling. It looked to me like it was both smoke and debris. It first came from the center corridor, but by the time it reached the revolving doors (a split second later) it seemed to come from every direction. At this point, the revolving doors exploded. They seemed to vaporize." - NIST NCSTAR 1-7, p. 76, "Interview 1000046” (NIST 2004)

Rodriguez' claim is the initial event..... the plane strike. He claims to have witnessed an explosion before he felt and heard the building shake from the plane impact.

My point was that he was 1100 feet below the impact... sound would tale one second to reach him. Any electrical issue... such as short circuit in the electrical over protection in the sub basement would essentially happen at the same time as the riser wires were severed by the jet impact as electricity travels at 186,000 feet / sec... essentially instantaneous at this distance.

The ALSO was an explosion at the moment of impact in WTC7 for the same reason... short/failure of circuit protection causing an electrical explosion. There are plenty of videos online of transformers of all size exploding from short circuits.

So YES there were explosions at the instant of the impact of AA11 as it severed 13.8 KV risers. These explosions led to fires. YES fuel entered the building and some likely spilled down the shafts... aerosolized and likely exploded causing havoc in the shafts which were on both long sides of the core. The ere not individual isolated shafts but it appears that the central bays on the north side of the core were destroyed where the plane penetrated the core and damage express freight and passenger car shafts at cols 503, 504, 505, 506, 604 & 605 which went from the basement and lobby to the top of the building
 

Attachments

  • tony's columns_page1.jpg
    tony's columns_page1.jpg
    35.6 KB · Views: 12
For many years I have wanted to take some of these explosion claiming truth leaders onto a demolition training range.

Let off a couple of lengths of det cord and a few lumps of HE.

They have NEVER heard the real thing. And the distinctive "crack" is unmistakeable.

Once heard never forgotten. And after someone has heard the real thing NEVER again can they by mistake or ignorance claim "explosive". They would have to deliberately lie.

Sure most of them wouldn't hesitate but....

As someone who grew up in the Tar Spring Oil Fields of Kentucky and played with explosives from tho oil fields, I can tell you none of those books sound like explosives to me. Once used exposives to shoot myself out over a lake, and I can tell you it was a bad mistake.
 
Could you do us a favor and identify those among reports of explosions and secondary explosions which may be consistent in timing, loudness, number and brisance with explosive demolition charges? Thank you.

...

The historic record of 9/11 so far is actually completely void of evidence for explosive charges associated with any of the collapses. (I am sure you have been painfully aware of this reality for years)


I pre-preemptively wish to thank you very sincerely for either your non-answer, or your completely and transparently evasive answer, which will not, in fact, contain any reference whatsoever to any witness report or physical recording of any explosion(s) that may plausibly be consistent in timing, loudness, number and brisance with explosive demolition charges :)

I wish to repeat my sincerest thanks, Fonebone, for your no doubt conscious decision not to answer my question and thereby confirm that you know perfectly well there is ZERO evidence for explosives consistent with explosive demolition:

  • There is ZERO evidence for explosive demolition in the witness accounts
  • There is ZERO evidence for explosive demolition in the video and sound recordings
  • There is ZERO evidence for explosive demolition in the physical evidence

Again, thanks for implicitly AGREEING without qualification to all of that by not responding to my question. I will henceforth list you as my witness for NO explosive charges on 9/11 :)
 
Could you do us a favor and identify those among reports of explosions and secondary explosions which may be consistent in timing, loudness, number and brisance with explosive demolition charges? Thank you.

Because, you see, for years now, I have time and again asked Truthers this question - which reports or sound records of "explosions" on 9/11 are consistent in timing, loudness, number and brisance with explosive demolition charges? - and NOBODY EVER identified only just one such explosion either in the witness record or in the video/sound record that survived more than 3 seconds of cursory scrutiny. None.

The historic record of 9/11 so far is actually completely void of evidence for explosive charges associated with any of the collapses. (I am sure you have been painfully aware of this reality for years)


I pre-preemptively wish to thank you very sincerely for either your non-answer, or your completely and transparently evasive answer, which will not, in fact, contain any reference whatsoever to any witness report or physical recording of any explosion(s) that may plausibly be consistent in timing, loudness, number and brisance with explosive demolition charges :)


Is that so ? What do you have to say about this post
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13000365#post13000365
HUGE EXPLOSION - Raining debris down on all of us ! N.J.Burkett on live television.
 
Is that so ? What do you have to say about this post
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13000365#post13000365
HUGE EXPLOSION - Raining debris down on all of us ! N.J.Burkett on live television.

The same I had to say about this post back then, in February:

What's your point, Fonebone? There are no explosion sounds in this video consistent with explosive demolition, or are there?

You see, in that video, not only the words of the reporter are recorded, the video also contains the sound recording of the event he is describing as "huge explosion".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCPVNLLo-mI

But - there is no number of sharp, extremely loud explosion sounds immediately PRIOR to the visible collapse, or is there?
The sounds and sights recorded in the video IMMEDIATELY disprove any notion that an explosive demolition is going on.

Can you please explain in full and grammatical sentences of English how either the sounds and sights of the event as captured in the video or the words of the reporter are evidence of explosion sounds consistent with explosive demolition in terms of loudness, timing, number and brisance?

You know, I already asked you the very same question back in last September:
And ... your argument and conclusion now is ... what?
Can you spell out, in a short string of full grammatical English sentences, what you mean to say?

Thanks for reminding us that you have never been able to point to any sound record, nor to any witness statement, that contains explosions consistent with explosive demolition.
 
Last edited:
After all these years, Oystein, it's still the case that you can specify "explosions and secondary explosions which may be consistent in timing, loudness, number and brisance with explosive demolition charges" all you like, but truthers will still say "this guy said he heard an explosion" and pretend that proves the presence of demolition charges. They'll cherry-pick one word in your request and match it to one word in their description, then have the nerve to pretend they've given you a valid answer.

Dave
 
Is that so ? What do you have to say about this post
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13000365#post13000365
HUGE EXPLOSION - Raining debris down on all of us ! N.J.Burkett on live television.

The reporter looked up and saw what he thought LOOKED LIKE AN EXPLOSION. Technically as the building collapse the air between the floors was rapidly compressed which is like an explosion. This is not the same as the use of explosives. They would be loud, they would have heard them in New Jersey, there would be no doubt.

When I was a kid when I played Army I loved throwing dirt clods because they came apart in a cloud of dust and fragments like a hand grenade. They looked like they exploded, but OBVIOUSLY they just disintegrated on impact.

This is exactly what everyone sees in the videos of the collapses. Sheetrock, ceiling tiles, florescent lights, and concrete all being pulverized in the fraction of a second thanks to gravity and the laws of motion and resistance.
 
Back
Top Bottom