• 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"

Fonebone said:
Originally Posted by Jaytje46 [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld2blues/buttons/viewpost.gif[/qimg]
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 !
Click to expand...

This got me curious. On here:

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nyt...12_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

It states: "The Sept. 11 Records - A rich vein of city records from Sept. 11, including more than 12,000 pages of oral histories rendered in the voices of 503 firefighters, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians, were made public on Aug. 12. The New York Times has published all of them. "

How do you know some were held back/deleted?
 
Fonebone said:
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 testimonies in total without deletions or redactions ?


A NO !
 [/quote


Thread Up date.. I'm sad to report the passing of a true man of honor and courage,
Graeme MacQueen



[excerpt] From a recent tribute

"Though Professor MacQueen did critically important work on several key areas of the 9/11-anthrax false flag, two of his contributions especially stand out: He became the leading expert on the more than 156 eyewitness testimonies to explosives going off during the demolition of the Twin Towers and WTC-7; and he wrote the best book on the anthrax component of the 9/11-anthrax operation."


https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/2023/05/tribute-to-prof-graeme-macqueen-truth-seeker/


"A good name is better than a girdle of Gold." French proverb

R.I.P.
Click to expand...
 
Fonebone said:
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 testimonies in total without deletions or redactions ?
A NO !
 [/quote


Fonebone>

Thread Up date.. I'm sad to report the passing of a true man of honor and courage,
Graeme MacQueen



[excerpt] From a recent tribute

"Though Professor MacQueen did critically important work on several key areas of the 9/11-anthrax false flag, two of his contributions especially stand out: He became the leading expert on the more than 156 eyewitness testimonies to explosives going off during the demolition of the Twin Towers and WTC-7; and he wrote the best book on the anthrax component of the 9/11-anthrax operation."


https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/2023/05/tribute-to-prof-graeme-macqueen-truth-seeker/


"A good name is better than a girdle of Gold." French proverb

R.I.P.
Click to expand...
 
Fonebone said:
[

"Though Professor MacQueen did critically important work on several key areas of the 9/11-anthrax false flag, two of his contributions especially stand out: He became the leading expert on the more than 156 eyewitness testimonies to explosives going off during the demolition of the Twin Towers and WTC-7; and he wrote the best book on the anthrax component of the 9/11-anthrax operation."


https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/2023/05/tribute-to-prof-graeme-macqueen-truth-seeker/


"A good name is better than a girdle of Gold." French proverb

R.I.P.
Click to expand...

A religious studies professor? How is he considered an expert here?
 
Fonebone said:
...

"A good name is better than a girdle of Gold." French proverb

R.I.P.
Click to expand...

Almost 22 years, complete failure to figure out 9/11. Sad. Very Sad... Better luck with Bigfoot, or Flat earth.

lol, very sad. When will 9/11 truth fantasy people join reality??? some soon, some never... who are U
 
Last edited:
Fonebone said:
Fonebone>

Thread Up date.. I'm sad to report the passing of a true man of honor and courage,
Graeme MacQueen

R.I.P.
Click to expand...

Nobody cares.

"Though Professor MacQueen did critically important work on several key areas of the 9/11-anthrax false flag, two of his contributions especially stand out: He became the leading expert on the more than 156 eyewitness testimonies to explosives going off during the demolition of the Twin Towers and WTC-7; and he wrote the best book on the anthrax component of the 9/11-anthrax operation."


https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/2023/05/tribute-to-prof-graeme-macqueen-truth-seeker/


"A good name is better than a girdle of Gold." French proverb
Click to expand...

A conspiracy theorist wrote a book about conspiracy theories. Really important work on the anthrax "attacks" would have included information leading to an arrest of a suspect or suspects. The FBI couldn't even do this.

And the 156 "eye witness" accounts are crap.

You can't have world peace if your body of written work is lies.
 
Oh, and what the the NY Times say when you emailed them to ask about the deletions?

I'd ask why no explosive residue, or evidence of explosives was found in the wreckage, but that question is too deep for the kiddie table.
 
Surely these things happen in threes, and we can look foward to Judy Wood or Richard Gage and their ideas going to the Great Garbage Bin in the Sky?
 
simile not understood in the 9/11 truth cult

Fonebone said:
...

Thread Up date.. I'm sad to report the passing of a true man of honor and courage,
Graeme MacQueen

[excerpt] From a recent tribute

"Though Professor MacQueen did critically important work on several key areas of the 9/11-anthrax false flag, two of his contributions especially stand out: He became the leading expert on the more than 156 eyewitness testimonies to explosives going off during the demolition of the Twin Towers and WTC-7; and he wrote the best book on the anthrax component of the 9/11-anthrax operation." ...
Click to expand...
? MacQueen?

Graeme MacQueen received his Ph.D. in Buddhist Studies from Harvard University and taught in the Religious Studies Department of McMaster University for 30 years.

MacQueen failed at simile. Sounded like? The cult of 9/11 truth blindly believe unqualified people like Graeme MacQueen.

9/11 truthers, celebrating two decades of woo.
 
I wasn't there but it seems to me that many people standing within hearing range could mistake the upper floors hitting the lower floors as an "explosion"
 
bknight said:
I wasn't there but it seems to me that many people standing within hearing range could mistake the upper floors hitting the lower floors as an "explosion"
Click to expand...

Me neither, but in a building that size aren't there likely to be pressurised cylinders (in the heating/aircon systems or whatever) that are likely to go off with a bang if they get hot enough?
 
SteveAitch said:
Me neither, but in a building that size aren't there likely to be pressurised cylinders (in the heating/aircon systems or whatever) that are likely to go off with a bang if they get hot enough?
Click to expand...

All sorts of things "sound like" explosions both when things burn and when things fall or collapse:
Fires:
  • Bottles pop
  • Things under tension rip and tear
  • Windows burst
  • Inflammable gas or dust undergoes conflagraton
  • Etc.
Collapses/falls:
  • Anything that hits a flat surface falling from a great hight
  • Steel breaking
  • Concrete cracking
  • A pancaking floor of the area of the twin towers has its air pushed out at hundreds of mph - this will vaguely look and sound "like explosions"
  • Etc.

Generally speaking, "sounds of explosions reported" is very common in reports about larger fires of various types. I remember vividly a clip on regional TV news about a series of arsons against garden sheds: The TV team was with a fire fighter squad called to yet another garden shed fire, and they reported "explosions" from within the burning shed. Best guess in this case might be things like lawn mower fuel, fertilizer, or soda bottles.
And very nearly 0% of all these reports of "sounds like an explosion" is down to there actually being an explosive (fuel is not an explosive), and even in the rare case an explosive is actually present (perhaps from an illegal weapon?), in very nealy 0% of such cases, the explosive is actually plantes as an explosive demolition device.

Mathematically:
The a-priori likelihood that a burning building is rigged with explosive demolition devices is something like 0.00001%
If you add the information that it is a VERY large fire, and "there are reported sounds like explosions", this information increases the likelihood by only a small facor, to maybe 0.000010001%.
The information, that the building collapses while burning may provide a more substantial factor - to maybe 0.0000500005%
To make the "explosive demolition devices" theory worth of consideration, you need the kind of evidence that is NOT common and expected - like you need evidence of, you know, actual explosive demolition devices. Or of structural elements showing failure modes diagnostic for the presence of explosive shock waves. Or at the very least of explosion sounds consistent with explosive demolition in terms such as loudness, timing, number, brisance, location.
You might for example ask Fonebone to select from the late Dr. MacQueen's book one (1) report of "sounds like explosions" that he, Fonebone, feels is most clearly consistent with explosive demolition in terms such as loudness, timing, number, brisance, location. You know, the single best individual such eye witness report in Fonebone's / MacQueen's arsenal; so you can look and scrutinize that particular report, to see whether it is, after all, consistent with explosive demolition in terms such as loudness, timing, number, brisance, location.
Here is my prediction: Fonebone will never ever, under no circumstance whatsoever, even if the lives of his parents, siblings, spouse or children literally depended on it, commit firmly to one (1) such witness report, confident that truly and surely it is consistent with explosive demolition. He will not do it. No conspiracy theorists ever commits to their best one (1) bit of evidence! Every conspiracy theorist, Fonebone included, knows deep within their woo-infested brains, that the Grand Total of reliable bits of evidence actually best supporting their favorite pet theory is precisely ZERO.

And this then goes for MacQueen's book of drivel, too:
MacQueen surely knew all through the miserable latter years of his inconsequential life that there is not even one (1) "sound like an explosion" in all the record of 9/11 witness reports that is consistent with explosive demolition: That is the exact reason why he produced a Gish Gallop list of 156 such reports.
Surely MacQueen knew all the time that many, most, perhaps all of these reports are NOT consistent with any non-brain-dear scheme of explosive demolition AND can possibly be adequately explained in entirely non-wooish terms. But does Fonebone say MacQueen put appropriate caveats on the 156 reports? Surely he didn't.
 
beachnut said:
? MacQueen?

Graeme MacQueen received his Ph.D. in Buddhist Studies from Harvard University and taught in the Religious Studies Department of McMaster University for 30 years.

MacQueen failed at simile. Sounded like? The cult of 9/11 truth blindly believe unqualified people like Graeme MacQueen.

9/11 truthers, celebrating two decades of woo.
Click to expand...
Slap dash effort on McQueen's part, probably deliberately so.

I keep seeing that video of Tyrone Johnson, James Duffy and Jimmy Grilli.put forward as evidence of secondary explosions in the tower lobby and having to point out the lobby in question was in the Marriott hotel. And that in subsequent interviews they say they were mistaken because they knew nothing of the tower collapse.

In fact that is a perfect illustration that a building collapsing can seem like an explosion.

Oh well, since even AE911Truthnis running out of steam fast I suppose it doesn't matter.
 
If you look at McQueen's list he places James Duffy in the south tower but you can see from his oral history interview he was in the Marriott when he thought he heard bombs. You can see video of the south tower collapsing on top of that building.

McQueen's list is quite useless.
 
Fonebone said:
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
Click to expand...

Take one of these, for example, N J Burkett, watch and listen when he says "explosion". He is 200 metres from the base of the south tower when it starts to collapse. No explosion sounds, just the rumbling of collapsing rubble. They don t even notice until the collapse is well underway.

Go through all those and they fall into the category of "weren't an eyewitness" or "Are describing things for which we have the video"

The "explosions" they mostly report are the sounds of the collapsing buildings.

They were witnessing something chaotic and utterly unprecedented, information about what was happening.
 
And of course if those 256 fire fighters had thought, after they had time to process the events, that there were explosives in those buildings they wouldn't have let it go. They are some of the most courageous people in the world, committed to community safety and with an incredibly strong bond eleith their fellow firefighters. The have one of the most effective unions in the world.

If they thought something was suspicious they would have taken action and kept on it.

So those 156 testimonies are very good evidence that there weren't explosives.
 
Oystein said:
MacQueen surely knew all through the miserable latter years of his inconsequential life that there is not even one (1) "sound like an explosion" in all the record of 9/11 witness reports that is consistent with explosive demolition: That is the exact reason why he produced a Gish Gallop list of 156 such reports.
Surely MacQueen knew all the time that many, most, perhaps all of these reports are NOT consistent with any non-brain-dear scheme of explosive demolition AND can possibly be adequately explained in entirely non-wooish terms. But does Fonebone say MacQueen put appropriate caveats on the 156 reports? Surely he didn't.
Click to expand...



What MacQueen actually knew about his fallacies is obvious conjecture. However, by examining the context of his "work" cited by Fonebone above, under the subheading "The Body of Evidence" the bias, intentional or not, is clearly present in enough detail to indicate how imbalanced and prejudiced his approach, cognizant processing, and conclusions are.

He writes this:


As we know, the New York firefighters were used by the U.S. government after 9/11 as
symbols of heroism, but there are in this collection very few heroic narratives. Many accounts
are actually structured as anti-heroic narratives--the firefighters arrive to save people and end up
running for their lives as the Towers collapse.[7] Others are outright chaos narratives, where
people mill around hopelessly with no plan and where their skills are useless.[8]
I find many of the stories powerfully told, with vulnerability and humanity. Patriotism is
no more than an occasional flash in these accounts, and there are extremely few witnesses who
try to use their experiences to advance the U.S. government’s war on terror.
Click to expand...


Firstly, this criticism of the U.S. government's policies after 9/11 is completely irrelevant to the content of the testimonies provided. Trying to equate emergency responders doing their duty under those extraordinary circumstance to be some intangible method of accountability for one's patriotism is a disturbing focus on the author's opinion, rather than fact.

Secondly, complaining that "there are in this collection very few heroic narratives" indicates either the author's disconnect from reality, or a deliberate attempt to continue to force his opinion upon the reader. My remark is based on two facts:
1) True heroes are unlikely to promote their achievements, thus they will provide little to no obvious details of such actions in their statements.
2) The majority of the greatest acts of heroism lie buried with the remains of the fallen.

Lastly, the line, "there are extremely few witnesses who try to use their experiences to advance the U.S. government’s war on terror", continues MacQueen's demonstration of incompetence/obfuscation as those testimonies were only instituted to recollect the events that unfolded at Ground Zero that day, and no mention of any broader perspective should be expected.

So, MacQueen clearly displays either an amateurishly inept ability to compile and discern facts from fantasy, or a purposefully directed agenda to mislead and misinform.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom