Merged Core-led collapse and explosive demolition

Other testimonies, compiled on 911lies.org:


The day after 9/11, a story in the Los Angeles Times, referring to the south tower, said: “There were reports of an explosion right before the tower fell, then a strange sucking sound, and finally the sound of floors collapsing."4

A story in the Guardian said that “police and fire officials were carrying out the first wave of evacuations when the first of the World Trade Centre towers collapsed. Some eyewitnesses reported hearing another explosion just before the structure crumbled. Police said that it looked almost like a ‘planned implosion.’"5

....

There were many reports about an explosion in the basement of the north tower. For example, janitor William Rodriguez reported that he and others felt an explosion below the first sub-level office at 9 AM, after which co-worker Felipe David, who had been in front of a nearby freight elevator, came into the office with severe burns on his face and arms yelling "explosion! explosion! explosion!"6p
Edited by Tricky: 
Edited for Rule 4. This is at least one of the links.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ergo said:
Um, Noah, that's not a real quote.

Read the real quotes.

Here and here.
Click to expand...

Well, the first link is from a post I already read, there were about 100 "likes" and "sounded likes" so that post is irrelevant.

The second link was to a PDF which you've obviously read but not understood. At no point in time does anybody say there WAS a bomb.

"I thought they blew it up with a bomb."

Does NOT EQUAL

"There was a bomb"

Edited by Tricky: 
Edited for rule 12.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ergo - seriously now. This is one of the sites of the worst terrorist attack ever.

You're under the impression that the only thing that can go "boom" is an explosive device?

also....

How do you account for the truther narrative that it was thermite/thermate/nanothermite/superthermite/somenewthermiteweveneverheardofbefore?

That stuff is reactive. Not explosive.
 
NoahFence said:
Well, the first link is from a post I already read, there were about 100 "likes" and "sounded likes" so that post is irrelevant.

The second link was to a PDF which you've obviously read but not understood. At no point in time does anybody say there WAS a bomb.

"I thought they blew it up with a bomb."

Does NOT EQUAL

"There was a bomb"

Edited by Tricky: 
Edited for quote of modded post.
Click to expand...


Why bother having newbies when they just regurgitate what the oldies say? Really all you need are bots. You guys have nothing new to say and you don't even understand the arguments.

Please show me where I have stated that witness testimonies of explosions means that there were bombs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And then explain, as jiggeryqua suggests, how witness testimonies of explosions means that there were no bombs.

If you can do either of these things, you might begin to understand how utterly stupid your argument is.
 
If Ergo is so interested in wanting to know if the explosions coming from the Towers were bombs, can he explain to me, why on God's green earth there weren't bomb squads called for the 16 acre WTC Complex? If indeed there were explosives in the Towers.

Also, can he explain why no firefighters saw nor reported seeing bombs while inside the buildings?

Come on Ergo, I'm a firefighter, I want to know!
 
ergo said:
Why bother having newbies when they just regurgitate what the oldies say? Really all you need are bots. You guys have nothing new to say and you don't even understand the arguments.

Please show me where I have stated that witness testimonies of explosions means that there were bombs.
Click to expand...

And you're not doing precisely the same thing? Please.

Going the "newbie" route = weak. Very weak.

You're doing a fine job of implying. That's what truthers do, it gives them an out when proven wrong by simple common sense. If you're not implying there were explosives, why go on a huge post diatribe copy-and-pasting all these quotes where people say "boom..boom...boom" or "like an explosive" - if you're not implying that, you wouldn't be quote mining them.
 
ergo said:
And then explain, as jiggeryqua suggests, how witness testimonies of explosions means that there were no bombs.

If you can do either of these things, you might begin to understand how utterly stupid your argument is.
Click to expand...

Actually I already did. Maybe the fact that you're an "oldie" means you're getting e-senile?

But I'll repeat myself, just for you.
If all you look at is eyewitness testimony, bombs can't be ruled out. However, they certainly can't be ruled IN either.

Now. Thankfully we have other methods of proving or disproving something. Truthers only go by eyewitness testimony when it suits them. Or they'll disregard eyewitness testimony if it doesn't. Its a fun game for ya, but pretty foolhardy.

Having said that - in my educated opinion, there were no explosive devices inside any of the three buildings in NYC. How do I come to this conclusion? Simple.

Did you happen to notice the aircraft hitting the buildings? Did you see the massive fireball?

Tell me one explosive that would survive that.

That's just one common sense observation. There are a whole bunch more.

As for bombs being in the buildings, there is nothing other than horrified eyewitness' testimony, fog-of-war similes, and outright lies to suggest there were bombs in the buildings.
 
You can read the testimonies, or you can ignore them. What you can't do is claim that there were no reports of explosions when obviously there were many, many reports of explosions in the buildings.

You can lead a bee to water....
 
ergo said:
You can read the testimonies, or you can ignore them. What you can't do is claim that there were no reports of explosions when obviously there were many, many reports of explosions in the buildings.

You can lead a bee to water....
Click to expand...

Yeah, but what you can't do is turn the word "explosion" into the word "explosive".

Bee's & water isn't a very good idea. Leading a bee to sweet nector, now that's something!
 
ergo said:
You can read the testimonies, or you can ignore them. What you can't do is claim that there were no reports of explosions when obviously there were many, many reports of explosions in the buildings.

You can lead a bee to water....
Click to expand...

Again, site of the worst terrorist attack ever.

Jet fuel induced fires raging unchecked.

Flaming debris raining down on the street below.


What do you expect? A golf clap? Of course there's going to be explosions, and what can be described as an explosion. It doesn't mean there were explosives.
 
NoahFence said:
Of course there's going to be explosions, and what can be described as an explosion. It doesn't mean there were explosives.
Click to expand...

It doesn't mean that there weren't. See, I can repeat myself idiotically too.
 
ergo said:
It doesn't mean that there weren't. See, I can repeat myself idiotically too.
Click to expand...
Absent of any physical evidence whatsoever of explosives, yes it does.

Absent of any explosions consistant with the brisance of explosive controlled demolitions, yes it does.

Absent of barotrauma injuries for those who were in the basements, elevators, etc in the examples you posted above, yes it does.
 
Last edited:
Hey Wildcat, have you finished counting to zero?

Do it one hundred more times.
 
A W Smith said:
absent of any physical evidence whatsoever of explosives, yes it does.
Click to expand...

Evidence of explosives is also in the description provided by witnesses, in the manner in which the floors blew out, according to them, in the pressure waves described, in the expulsion of tiny bone fragments laterally onto neighbouring buildings, and in the noise they created.

What traces of explosives would you expect to find in the rubble of a building that has been reduced literally to dust? Where not even something the size of a phone remained.
 
ergo said:
It doesn't mean that there weren't. See, I can repeat myself idiotically too.
Click to expand...

I guess you just glanced over the part where I explain why the masses feel there were no explosives. No surprise.

I'll give you the cliffs notes version, again:

For explosives:
Shocked eyewitness testimony, fog-of-war similes, outright lies by the truth movement.

Against explosives:
Shocked eyewitness testimony, physical evidence, common sense.

Get it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom